It will be interesting to see what happens in Australia now that they have started enforcing the under-16 ban for social media. Teens want friendship and connection, and today that happens on social media; banning them will simply drive this desire elsewhere, perhaps to Discord or other “not social” media, or into private direct messaging groups, e.g. Signal. Worse, it might lure teens into Tor/darkweb services that can be much more dangerous.
PS I'm very sorry but I have no idea if some metaphors are cross-language. Here we say "look at the elephant in the room" when people are talking or acting about less relevant (or even wrong) issues, while the huge and complex question is just in front of them and they willingly avoid it. As a non-native English speaker I know my own languages expressions and rarely match the meanings. Here, when you criticize others for something you are just doing, we say "bull calling the donkey horns-headed". The donkey has no horns on his head, while the bull does. But English expression changes in "the pot calling the kettle black". Like when I (blind person) tell the sighted "please use your eyes and be careful of where you go!"
@elettrona Oh don’t be sorry! I find the metaphors fascinating. The “elephant in the room” metaphor is also used in English, although it’s usually in the negative, for example, “Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room.”
In general, I’m skeptical that this ban will do much good. For one thing, “banning under-16s” necessarily means “identifying over-16s” online (how else would you implement the ban?), which massively expands surveillance of online activity for adults. Yes, there are ways to perform age attestation without identification, but any germ of surveillance will breed more surveillance, just you watch. Second, banning *algorithms* will help everyone, not just teens. Third, maybe educate teens to be skeptical of online manipulation. After all, turning 16 doesn’t magically make you wiser.
Growing up in an Internet-by-default world requires novel skills. Parents need to take a more active part in their children’s online activities, and teach them how to navigate online traps, and make them aware of the ways they are manipulated by social media algorithms. Governments need to prevent harm by banning addictive or other harmful algorithms at the source.
Let me translate what I said in an Italian Fediverse network discussing the same topic. Banning teens from social network, or better saying: age verification, is doubling a problem while assuming to be solving one. It's admitting defeat, with this move politicians, schools, and people in favor of it, are saying "we have failed". Education is the solution, because let's stop pretending, and let's look at the elephant in the room. Commercial social networks are manipulating adults, even worse than minors. Fake news, romance scam, I could fill in the whole space to list all of them; algorithm is a problem, social engineering is a problem, schools basing education on notions rather than culture, is the root of it all. We have become passive viewers/listeners and if you ever pose a question, you're labelled by default. Educating is a long-term method but it takes knowledge, time, and moderation. Extremists can't educate. But now, governments are behaving with Internet like doctors did decades ago with teeth. Investigating on what's the issue? No. Let's take all teeth away. Or in certain cases even stomach, even arms or legs, etc. Eliminate the problem because you're not able to face it. And, in case of Internet, the truth is even more difficult to face: Internet is developing faster than laws. Who thought what could happen in 3 years? Now scams and illegal material (including racism) has acquired definitely another level thanks to automated content generation. Which politician is capable of keeping themselves updated? They're mostly over 60-70 years old. And younger want to push votes than worrying of their country.
@elettrona Personally, I think Australia took a step in the right direction. Next, I'd like to see the majority of social media companies get a total ban.
Most countries place limits on the amount of foreign-owned traditional media companies (television/newspaper). The same needs to be applied to social media.
@txtx The problem is that this social media ban can easily turn into mass surveillance. I never support those ideas. eff.org/age - Electronic Frontiers Foundation explain it effectively
Age verification (or age-gating) laws generally require online services to check, estimate, or verify all users’ ages—often through invasive tools like ID checks, biometric scans, or other dubious “age estimation” methods—before granting them access …
@elettrona Nearly all adults are giving away their names and addresses to these platforms. We are under mass surveillance today, and these corporations are feeding us garbage based on their spying on us.
I just don't know what a 13 or 14 year old child gains from watching cartoons created by Russian disinformation factories, shown to them by Meta or Google.
@txtx I think we should defend our privacy rights in any way possible, but IMHO Internet's anonimity is still a value. It is hypocrite to say that, "anonimity brings to hatred" because we have politicians all over the world who hate people showing their proud face while they say "latin / black / trans / whatever, are unhumans". The issue doesn't stay on Internet as Internet is the mirror of what we do in real
@elettrona I agree with that, but there still seems to be a complete lack of ideas on how to fight the severe problems anonymity and disinfo create.
To go back to the dentistry analogy you made earlier: We've let things fester for years; now we've all got rotten teeth and the infection is spreading to our brains.
At this stage, teaching people to brush their teeth, sure, education is important. But isn't it superficial considering the severity of the patient's illness?
@txtx @elettrona It is undeniable that social media, rotten as it sometimes is, provides real services that people enjoy, otherwise they will have no customers left. Remember that enshittification is a continuum, and we are still somewhere on that spectrum.
I think lumping “anonymity” and “disinformation” together is not a good idea. Anonymous accounts can spread disinfo, but they don’t always. Anonymous accounts also allow vulnerable people—some targeted by the state—to connect to others without “outing” themselves to a surveillance state. People should be empowered to provide as little or as much information about themselves online.
Much of the damaging effects of social media is directly caused by the desire for advertising revenue. Addicting people and feeding them disinfo literally makes money for the operators, so I think that phenomenon should be regulated.
@elettrona If you, like me, live in a working democracy...and this democracy is being targeted by multiple powerful state and corporate actors who leverage anonymity to turn people into nazis...what are we defending here really?
@txtx @elettrona I think it’s important to preserve what’s good when fighting evil. Will banning anonymity lead to a better nation? Or will it give corporate actors and an authoritarian government even more surveillance powers?
@txtx I think it's the second option. As an HIV advocate I know what the importance of anonimity is. First, eliminate stigma. Eliminate hatred. Eliminate violence. Disinformation. Then, MAYBE, talk about eliminating anonymous communication!
@txtx When defending anonimity I am also talking to all those people who can't talk about their condition -disability or HIV or LGBT or whatever- in the countries where they are born or they'd be killed. Anonymous communities where they can freely talk are a safe space where -at least on line- they can feel they are not alone. Anonimity brings even the other side, people spreading hatred and stigma feel free to do it? True. But the root of the problem is education. Education is missing. About solution? Without breaking anonimity, to access the Internet everyone should be enabled to write into communities after an anti-hatred and anti-disinfo license, updateable every 6 months. WIth blockchain or whatever private key making every course and exam unique so that you can't share the solutions of questions with others.
@elettrona The dilemma with anonymity is that we're choosing which lives we want to protect, and which are collateral damage. It's a gruesome problem.
In my view: my anonymity is not more valuable than someone's life in Southeast Asia. Nor do I want to take away someone else's ability to safely communicate in unfree countries.
"Essere primi in classifica significa tantissimo, siamo lassù perché abbiamo lavorato e saputo soffrire a prescindere da quello che si dice noi" dice il capitano, sempre a difesa del gruppo
#LNP - #SerieA2 Ruvo di Puglia vs Milano 75 - 80 Rimini vs Bologna 83 - 68 Pistoia vs Cividale 78 - 81 Cremona vs Torino 69 - 73 Bergamo vs Brindisi 95 - 80 Roseto vs Scafati 68 - 87 Rieti vs Livorno 64 - 75 Avellino vs Forlì 90 - 79 Pesaro vs Cento 80 - 66
Hey all, @yoginho and my workshop has been accepted to the Haecksen CfP! We consider it important to reflect upon the initial acceptance of Joscha Bach/Plinz' talk at #39C3 as well as his previous talks at chaos events, in the context of discussing fascist trends in tech in general.
However, we still lack a ticket for Yogi. We're of course monitoring the official ticket resell system, but if anyone has a spare or comes across another ticket, please let us know!
The tech-libertarian transhumanist narrative is nothing but a hypermodern salvation myth. It is used to propagate a feudalist model of society in which a select few reap all the benefits. We discuss this ideology and how to oppose it.
The view of rooftops and treetops along the Hudson River (Manhattan, NYC), and across the river at New Jersey. All coated in white, but as you can see, cars are able to drive on the highway (plowed) and the river is not frozen.
Carlo Conti dal Teatro Del Casinò in diretta su Rai1 ha svelato con i 30 big in gara i titoli delle canzoni che sentiremo a febbraio al Festival di Sanremo 2026
James Talarico: “The biggest welfare queens in this country are the giant corporations that don’t pay a penny in federal taxes. The biggest welfare queens are the CEOs who get a tax deduction for flying on a private jet. It’s not hungry kids. It’s not working parents who work multiple jobs”
@pascal Yes, it’s reminiscent of the group of rich kids who consider themselves entrepreneurs and they started talking about. Why don’t we like get together and agree on some sort of group funding for service that we need.
They were very proud of themselves that they had created something new to solve a problem
#LBA Trapani vs Udine 91 - 73 Tortona vs Sassari 118 - 113 Brescia vs Varese 102 - 94 Napoli vs Cremona 102 - 76 Treviso vs Cantù 86 - 81 Milano vs Bologna 74 - 63
We got a bit of snow overnight (not much, about 4–5 cm), but it's quite cold today with high winds — -4 ℃ with a wind of >27 kph, making it feel more like -16 ℃ — so I figured I'd post some shivery photos. These two are from the Antarctic about 11 years ago. #winter
I was trying to be artistic when I saw this tree had had one of its branches cut off to reveal this shape, so I made it a black and white photo and called it "Heartwood." Photo copyright 2014 by Mendur #photography #photo
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
La DGSI rempile pour trois ans avec Palantir: "Nous sommes heureux de continuer à accompagner dans les prochaines années les renseignements français (...) Nous continuons de fournir notre logiciel à la DGSI pour qu'elle puisse mieux exploiter ses données, affirme l'antenne française du groupe américain aux Echos. Et les lobbyistes du Renseignement qui juraient que le recours au groupe américain serait temporaire, il y a dix ans...
Experimenting with a star-shaped lens filter. Sadly, since my lens isn't fast enough, it only works when completely zoomed in. Here's it in action, with our christmas tree in the background and an annoyed cat in the foreground. #photography #cat
Beim Workshop vor 2 Wochen hab ich so an die 30 neue Menschen getroffen. Und wenn ich in Gesprächen erwähnt hab, dass ich eine Kolumne über seltene aber skurrile Todesursachen schreibe, waren die Reaktionen sehr ähnlich: Funkelnde Augen, Neugier und die Frage, wo diese faszinierenden Geschichten denn erscheinen. Daraus nehme ich mit, dass #UnwahrscheinlichTödlich noch nicht annähernd bekannt genug ist - viele prinzipiell interessierte Leute da draußen haben offensichtlich noch nie davon gehört!
Daraus ergibt sich für mich natürlich die Frage: Wie erreiche ich diese Menschen besser? Wo kann/muss/soll ich die Werbetrommel rühren und was kann ich sonst tun, um die Texte zu denen zu bringen, die sie noch nicht kennen aber mit Freude lesen würden?
Wie wahrscheinlich die meisten Menschen mach ich nicht *gern* Selbstpromo - es ist eher unangenehm, immer wieder zu versuchen, das Spotlight an sich zu reißen. Aber was ich natürlich trotzdem will, ist, dass die Texte ihr Publikum finden. Ich will Leute zum Nachdenken bringen, ihnen weird facts an die Hand geben und sie auch manchmal zum Schmunzeln bringen.
Und um das zu erreichen, muss ich halt auch immer wieder selbst für #UnwahrscheinlichTödlich werben. Aber ihr könnt mich unterstützen: wenn ihr mögt und ihr eventuell derart geneigte Menschen im Umfeld habt, help me spread the word! Vielleicht finden die Texte so zu weiteren Personen, die sich denken: Geil, genau solche Inhalte haben mir gefehlt, und ich wusste es nicht einmal! ☠️ spektrum.de/index/unwahrschein…
A black and white illustration depicts a long table set for tea, with three figures seated around it. A figure to the left is seated in a chair, with a plate and cup and saucer in front of them. Beside them sits a rabbit figure, and further along is a figure with a round face and a prominent nose. A small animal figure is curled up between the rabbit and round-faced figure. Several cups and saucers are scattered along the table, with a mostly empty teapot near the center.
The figure to the left is wearing a dress and is looking to the right of the frame. The rabbit figure is seated upright with a napkin around the neck. The round-faced figure wears a hat with the text "In this style" and a number "10" inscribed on it, and is leaning forward with the elbows on the table. The small animal is positioned between the figures.
The scene appears to be indoor, with a visible texture of shading and line-work throughout.
Provided by @altbot, generated privately and locally using Gemma3:27b
Elena Brescacin
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •As a non-native English speaker I know my own languages expressions and rarely match the meanings.
Here, when you criticize others for something you are just doing, we say "bull calling the donkey horns-headed".
The donkey has no horns on his head, while the bull does. But English expression changes in "the pot calling the kettle black".
Like when I (blind person) tell the sighted "please use your eyes and be careful of where you go!"
Dave Rahardja 🎄
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •Elena Brescacin
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •Dave Rahardja 🎄
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •In general, I’m skeptical that this ban will do much good. For one thing, “banning under-16s” necessarily means “identifying over-16s” online (how else would you implement the ban?), which massively expands surveillance of online activity for adults. Yes, there are ways to perform age attestation without identification, but any germ of surveillance will breed more surveillance, just you watch. Second, banning *algorithms* will help everyone, not just teens. Third, maybe educate teens to be skeptical of online manipulation. After all, turning 16 doesn’t magically make you wiser.
Growing up in an Internet-by-default world requires novel skills. Parents need to take a more active part in their children’s online activities, and teach them how to navigate online traps, and make them aware of the ways they are manipulated by social media algorithms. Governments need to prevent harm by banning addictive or other harmful algorithms at the source.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •Banning teens from social network, or better saying: age verification, is doubling a problem while assuming to be solving one.
It's admitting defeat, with this move politicians, schools, and people in favor of it, are saying "we have failed". Education is the solution, because let's stop pretending, and let's look at the elephant in the room. Commercial social networks are manipulating adults, even worse than minors. Fake news, romance scam, I could fill in the whole space to list all of them; algorithm is a problem, social engineering is a problem, schools basing education on notions rather than culture, is the root of it all. We have become passive viewers/listeners and if you ever pose a question, you're labelled by default.
Educating is a long-term method but it takes knowledge, time, and moderation. Extremists can't educate.
But now, governments are behaving with Internet like doctors did decades ago with teeth. Investigating on what's the issue? No. Let's take all teeth away. Or in certain cases even stomach, even arms or legs, etc.
Eliminate the problem because you're not able to face it. And, in case of Internet, the truth is even more difficult to face: Internet is developing faster than laws. Who thought what could happen in 3 years? Now scams and illegal material (including racism) has acquired definitely another level thanks to automated content generation. Which politician is capable of keeping themselves updated? They're mostly over 60-70 years old. And younger want to push votes than worrying of their country.
txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •@elettrona Personally, I think Australia took a step in the right direction. Next, I'd like to see the majority of social media companies get a total ban.
Most countries place limits on the amount of foreign-owned traditional media companies (television/newspaper). The same needs to be applied to social media.
That would get to the core of the problem.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦 • • •Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub
Electronic Frontier Foundationtxtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •@elettrona
Nearly all adults are giving away their names and addresses to these platforms. We are under mass surveillance today, and these corporations are feeding us garbage based on their spying on us.
I just don't know what a 13 or 14 year old child gains from watching cartoons created by Russian disinformation factories, shown to them by Meta or Google.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦 • • •txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •@elettrona I agree with that, but there still seems to be a complete lack of ideas on how to fight the severe problems anonymity and disinfo create.
To go back to the dentistry analogy you made earlier: We've let things fester for years; now we've all got rotten teeth and the infection is spreading to our brains.
At this stage, teaching people to brush their teeth, sure, education is important. But isn't it superficial considering the severity of the patient's illness?
Dave Rahardja 🎄
in reply to txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦 • • •@txtx @elettrona It is undeniable that social media, rotten as it sometimes is, provides real services that people enjoy, otherwise they will have no customers left. Remember that enshittification is a continuum, and we are still somewhere on that spectrum.
I think lumping “anonymity” and “disinformation” together is not a good idea. Anonymous accounts can spread disinfo, but they don’t always. Anonymous accounts also allow vulnerable people—some targeted by the state—to connect to others without “outing” themselves to a surveillance state. People should be empowered to provide as little or as much information about themselves online.
Much of the damaging effects of social media is directly caused by the desire for advertising revenue. Addicting people and feeding them disinfo literally makes money for the operators, so I think that phenomenon should be regulated.
txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •@elettrona If you, like me, live in a working democracy...and this democracy is being targeted by multiple powerful state and corporate actors who leverage anonymity to turn people into nazis...what are we defending here really?
We're sticking our heads in the sand, in my view.
Dave Rahardja 🎄
in reply to txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦 • • •Elena Brescacin
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •Dave Rahardja 🎄
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Dave Rahardja 🎄 • • •@elettrona
Right this moment, as a result of Internet anonymity, hundreds of thousands of people are being brutally tortured, forced into slavery and murdered.
Unfortunately, what's being protected is western privilege and corporate profits at the cost of Pakistani, Indian and Southeast Asian lives.
But anonymity advocates aren't presenting a solution to this, and I think that's a shame.
Elena Brescacin
in reply to txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦 • • •Anonimity brings even the other side, people spreading hatred and stigma feel free to do it? True. But the root of the problem is education. Education is missing. About solution? Without breaking anonimity, to access the Internet everyone should be enabled to write into communities after an anti-hatred and anti-disinfo license, updateable every 6 months. WIth blockchain or whatever private key making every course and exam unique so that you can't share the solutions of questions with others.
txtx 🇪🇺🇺🇦
in reply to Elena Brescacin • • •@elettrona The dilemma with anonymity is that we're choosing which lives we want to protect, and which are collateral damage. It's a gruesome problem.
In my view: my anonymity is not more valuable than someone's life in Southeast Asia. Nor do I want to take away someone else's ability to safely communicate in unfree countries.
But this doesn't have to be a contradiction.