An Age-Gated Internet Is an Admission of Defeat ⇥ jamesrball.com

I am a tiny bit sorry for all the links I am posting regarding age gating. As I have written before, it is something I am still trying to work out for myself. After all, it seems straightforward why age verification is an easy way to reduce the risks to children of today’s platforms, the operators of which marketed their products directly to kids. But the trade-offs are numerous, whether from a predominantly U.S.-centric view of individual freedoms, or from the way such restrictions fail to address product safety concerns.

James Ball, Techtris:

In practice, of course, a social media ban would be widely circumvented. If we think the internet is bad for teenagers now, imagine a world in which all online access is illicit. Social platforms would have a new defence against online harms against that group: they’re just not meant to be there.

Provided Facebook, X, TikTok or whoever could show it had some legally compliant age verification system, harm befalling a teenager wouldn’t be their fault. They weren’t supposed to be there, after all. Instead of being the negligent owners of a space marketed to teens, they’re the blameless victims of trespass.

Age gates are such a procedural and mediocre response. Instead of reining in whatever broader risks may be invented or exacerbated by these companies’ products — and, in particular, the unique problems of each — we are throwing up our hands and pretending it is all too complicated.