C'mon. We all know parents are far more likely to tap "OK" for "Allow personalized social feeds?" than they are to knowingly falsify their kids' age. The kids will be begging them to and saying "It's just to personalize it, Dad! There's nothing scary or bad on Tiktok - all my friends are using the personalized feed and mine is BORING!"

> The decision should be happening in my house on the devices I control, not in a Meta data center. The current law just gives Meta a way to start building a shadow profile early.

The decision would still be in your hand. If you want them to be using all the max addictive crap, just fake their age on the device that you bought them.

> The current law just gives Meta a way to start building a shadow profile early.

Whether or not they can start building a profile to start using at 18 is unrelated to this, and depends on data protection laws. There's no use tying the two together.

I know lots of parents and lots of kids, and I don't think this is accurate. In my experience the breakdown is parents who care what their kids are doing online, and parents who assume it will all turn out fine because they had AOL or even Facebook as teenagers and didn't get into too much trouble. The first group is already keeping an eye on their kids and might even have decent parental controls set up, and the second group doesn't care what happens as long as charges don't show up on the credit card.

These bills punish the first group of parents and OS/device makers for the transgressions of social media companies. The uninvolved parents won't even be in the room when the age question comes up.

And there is also the group of parents that at the moment have decided no device is safe enough to be given to a child or adolescent.

They are a good litmus test of the bill; would they be happy to provide devices if there was age verification built in?

I am in this group and I wouldn't.

well, actual verification isn't even on the table in Illinois so that's quite a hypothetical.

But anyway, since you'll always retain the right to not give a device (which, btw I cheer and support that decision with or without the age declaration law existing) why does your lack of trusting devices with kids have to do with anything? This scheme can exist and not affect you at all, and will benefit the many "moderate" parents who do give carefully-supervised devices, and don't carelessly just throw brand-new devices at the kids.

If I'm that parent who did decide to start giving access because this bill came to be, I'd still be limiting "the internet" to a small allow-list of sites whose compliance, and exact manner of compliance, I was satisfied with.

Or are you waiting for some science-fiction proposal that will be completely perfect, which you know will never happen.

> The uninvolved parents won't even be in the room when the age question comes up.

We agree that idiot parents (and therefore their kids) can't be helped. So let's just not even consider them in deciding what to do.

Having to take an action is the opposite of no impact to me.

The problem is caused by social media companies designing their products to be addictive. This law puts a lot of requirements on parties other than the social media companies.

If you want to sell alcohol, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the alcohol. If you want to sell tobacco, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the tobacco. But if you want to push addictive social media feeds, it is apparently now the job of device manufacturers, operating system developers, and parents to do the verification work for you.

Don't you think it's a little odd that Meta is spending money pushing these bills that shift responsibility onto other parties?

>Or are you waiting for some science-fiction proposal that will be completely perfect, which you know will never happen.

Yes, I'm waiting for a sci-fi proposal like "companies should be responsible for their actions and shouldn't require other companies to do their work for them".