For digital spaces built on safety, transparency, and freedom.

[webbop@tech.lgbt]

@EUCommission as a citizen in the EU I would like to ask, how would the age be handled?

Is it self-defined? Does it need to verify? How will it be verified? Who will handle verifying? What will protect us from those who are supposed to verify, will there be restrictions?

[hllizi@hespere.de]

@EUCommission this isn't the banger you might think it is. If you had tried to write image descriptions you might have noticed yourselves.

[petersoukup@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission What about PRIVACY? Child safety is just an excuse for an orwellian dystopian surveillance. No, thank you! No more #ChatControl !!!

#privacy #privacyisaright #StopChatControl

[irina@wandering.shop]

@EUCommission Setting the age limit too high (like 16) may endanger teens who are, for instance, queer without support from home. You're cutting them off from their only lifeline.

[fdr@mstdn.social]

@EUCommission you are looking for a technical solution to a social problem. It will not work

[int21h@mastodon.gal]

@EUCommission

Goal achieved.
Many children in Gaza won't be harassed in social networks. They've been killed in real life.

[gladtherescake@todon.nl]

@EUCommission Because as we all know, from deep within our guts, all people that harm children are the weird perverts online. It's not as if abuse is usually done by people close to the children who have institutional power over them—and the research bears that out—that would obviously be absurd! We should give people close to children way more power to control everything they see! Because children deserve to see only trivial things that aren't challenging the worldview of those that own and control them! God forbid they see a queer person or something...

[xsterbeprozessx@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission ihr wollt Kinder aus der Demokratie aussperren das ist kein Schutz das ist der Anfang von Diktaturen gewesen, wie wäre es die Anbieter in die Pflicht zu nehmen die Algorithmen entsprechend zu entwickeln das diese nicht mehr so schädlich sind, das sie gegen Hassrede und Co vorgehen das wollt ihr nicht das macht ihr nicht ihr steht nicht auf der Seite der Kinder ihr steht auf Seite der Konzerne und der Reichsten die damit die Demokratie zerstören.

[christof@fedihum.org]

@EUCommission

This is like asking kids not to leave the house because the car traffic outside is too dangerous.

The solution is to reduce the traffic, and its speed, not to ban kids from leaving the house.

Also, the traffic is dangerous to everyone, not just the kids, even if they might be particularly at risk.

Don't penalize a vulnerable group; treat the problem instead!

On social media, we don't need age limits; we need better enforcement of content moderation rules!

[s_wilson@mastodon.uno]

@EUCommission this is just surveillance, the children should have privacy and safety, not grow up in a panopticon and being told it's love (especially girls need to know that surveillance is never love)

[petersoukup@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission By the way, this is what Musk's "ground breaking, revolutionary" AI Grok is posting: If you really want to do something about child safety online, I'd start by banning Musk, Nazi, disinformation cesspit X ...

[hew@c.im]

@EUCommission seems like a sensible step would be to ban cesspits like X tbh. And rightly regulate META.

[elricofmelnibone@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission Have you considered leaving the parenting to actual parents, isntead of implementing Orwellian garbage?

[danielgibert@mastodon.online]

@EUCommission I'm sorry, what you are going to obtain is children using internet illegally, because they will find a way, more uncontrolled than ever, and absolutely no benefit for the rest of users, specially for those in sensitive and dangerous situations. I, as a father, don't wan't this for my kids.

You start deciding what we can see on internet, will end on what we can read, say or think.

Internet is not a playground, we should start educating and teaching, not blocking and forbidding.

[drionescu@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission This is one salutary proposal. Kids need to be shielded from all the non-sense social media stuff. Some adults too, but one step at a time.

[mcbaumwolle@mastodon.social]

@danielgibert @EUCommission Exactly, like what happened to parents protecting their kids online? Or if they don't know how, not allowing kids to use unrestricted internet access? 😭

[ivolimmen@toot.community]

@EUCommission I would love to see law and restrictions as long as it does not include:
- Age verification
- Communication monitoring

We should just fine platforms that can not keep up their promises

[hauntshade@hauntshadesocial.nl]

@EUCommission

Censorship is not the answer for people who don’t know how to parent their kids online.
If parents would do their fucking jobs and actually parent their children, this would not be necessary.

[proscience@toot.community]

@EUCommission

This is another step in advancing your authoritarian agenda disguises as caring about kids' safety and well-being.

You're no less fascistic and authoritarian than Trump, Musk, Thiel, Putin or Xi: Enemies of democracy and freedom.

[evimily@fedi.katze.sh]

@EUCommission "think of the children" is always a very convenient excuse for establishing a surveillance state. There is no way of doing this without establishing a central authority over who is worthy of participating in society. How about holding adults responsible if they fail to protect children from bullying and similar negative influences, instead of locking them out of spaces that to many of us (queer people especially) has been a lifeline? The vast majority of abuse children experience is from their immediate surroundings and all this will do is give children affected by this one less space where they might get help.