I'm 100% for banning social media for children. I would even extend it to banning it all together in its current form. But I am also against the methods for enforcement. The problem with banning social media for one group and not another is that you have to differentiate the different groups somehow. And right now, in an age where information and personal data means everything, there are several entities that are salivating to get this data. I've written before about all the problems that come from uploading sensitive data online. It doesn't even matter if they delete the data afterward, as long as the data goes through the wire in the first place, there is a chance for a leak. What appears to be the same simple request "please verify your identity", becomes fundamentally different when mediated by technology. The question isn't whether these digital systems will be compromised, but when. And unlike that movie theater clerk who can't perfectly recall my birthdate minutes after seeing it, computers have perfect memory. They store, copy, backup, and transmit our most sensitive information through networks we don't control, to companies we've never heard of, under policies we'll never read. When kids are not allowed to use social media, it's the adult who pays the price. It's the adult who has to prove that they are not children. They have to risk uploading their government ID to a third party, or biometric data that may be saved and backed up forever. I reject this method. I also reject the method where I have to provide my age to the operating system. No system should compel me to provide personal data in order to use it. Especially if this feature is intended to provide the information to a third party. And what happens if I don't provide this information to my freebsd machine? Or worse, what if I provide false information? Am I going to get punished? How does that protect children in any way? Breaking news: Grown up arrested when OS reported forged identity in his laptop. One question I asked myself was what happens when a minor circumvents the ban. What are the consequences? At least in Australia, a country that has implemented a social media ban for those under 16, there are no consequences. The law places legal responsibility on platforms, not children or parents, and it currently applies to Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. This almost sounds reasonable. Why should you care, if it becomes facebook responsibility when you don't even own a facebook account? But there is always a caveat. When facebook becomes a tool your school uses to communicate with parents. When Google classroom is the service students use to do their homework. When you are required to login on a system to receive government service. You may not care about a particular social media, but they raise the bar for every other entrant in the game. Every website frequented by a large number of people inherently become social media, and demand data you didn't need to provide before. Technology is not a magical thing that can just solve every problem. It is especially weak when it comes to social problems. However, society can use technology to solve their problems. The responsibility of children falls onto their parents. And there are great tools for parents that their kids access on their devices.

Plus Thomas Ableman on what we can learn about AI from the Victorian railway rollout

Water-resistant microneedles made from food-grade silk could deliver vaccines to help prevent the spread of disease in aquaculture.

The Last Word Processor You'll Ever Need

I love Letterboxd, but I hate how they show you the cast on the web app. Here's the cast of The Batman on the web. I mean, that's them, but I'm often going to this page wondering who played someone, and that is an