John Perry Barlow (1947-2018), essayist and poet, author of many of the lyrics for the legendary "Grateful Dead," was one of the first "cyberactivists" and the author of the "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" (Davos, February 8, 1996). Anyone reading it today for the first time might be truly surprised. Both because it describes a very different Internet from the one we know, and because-political naivety aside-the author of that document had already understood the potential of computer-mediated communication and its inevitable spread. The "Declaration" called on states and governments not to interfere in "Cyberspace," defined as a virtual world in which a sort of social utopia was being built without borders or discrimination, a new society based on shared rather than imposed rules.
In those years, user restrictions and controls were limited exclusively to protecting military resources and little else. One of the most common communication protocols used for file transfers was called "anonymous FTP" because the server didn't request any data from anyone connecting to upload or download a file.
Even in the context of interpersonal collective communication, which already existed even if it wasn't called "social media," no one noticed if you used a "nickname" instead of a first and last name.
One passage in the "Declaration" in particular seems to have been written yesterday evening: "You are terrified of your children, for they are natives of a world into which you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust to your bureaucracies the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to face."
After thirty years, the hypocritical obsession with protecting minors from the dangers of the Internet has grown exponentially, affecting every level and country in the world. It threatens to end anonymity, one of the founding principles of freedom of communication online.
As often happens when it comes to such issues, the United States occupies a pioneering position that will serve as a model for other countries. However, for now, only two states have passed laws that would prevent minors from accessing programs and content deemed inappropriate for their age.
Starting in 2027, computers sold in California will be required to require a date of birth in addition to a name and password when creating the first user account. This will allow applications installed on the computer to prevent or limit the use of certain programs. A similar law will go into effect in Colorado in 2028. Companies responsible for developing operating systems will be responsible for creating this system. Similar laws have been introduced in other states, and a law has been under discussion at the federal level for some time that, if passed, would apply across the United States.
What will shock some local politicians, if they read this news, is how the system will work: in California, age will be required, but the information provided will not be verified. In practice, a minimum amount of reasonableness has been applied (it's unlikely a twelve-year-old can afford a computer), meaning parents will decide which date of birth will be entered on the computers their sons and daughters use. Other proposals circulating instead call for some form of proof of age to be stored on the computer. These range from a standard driver's license to a credit card to a photo of the child's face.
As is clear even to those without specific IT skills, the two solutions available are quite different. The first relies on reasonableness and the accountability of those responsible for caring for minors; the second only leads to a series of side effects.
Last February, a well-known website publishing content labeled as pornographic blocked the majority of connections from the United Kingdom because it lacked the tools to verify the age of those connecting. In the British Isles, the recently passed "Online Safety Act" affected, as always happens in these cases, even sites completely free of content deemed obscene. To the rescue of those who frequent certain sites, a major smartphone company implemented a mandatory age check directly into its operating system in March. Owners of those phones can now connect to the banned site without any problems. This system has been activated not only in the UK, but also (for now) in South Korea and Singapore.
Her Majesty's Government believes that blocking minors under 16 from using the most popular social media platforms is a way to build "a new normal for future generations, spark a cultural shift, and lead the government's fight to provide every child with the best start in life."
As if that weren't enough, the possibility of blocking access to sites that broadcast live video and applications that allow video calls with strangers has been mooted. Finally, there's even talk of implementing a sort of "curfew" during which minors under 18 cannot use certain programs.
Those who oppose the implementation of this type of regulation raise two fundamental criticisms: the first is that the ban works (when it works at all) only by forcing everyone to identify themselves, thus paving the way for the definitive mass control of the Internet. The second warns of the real danger inherent in the proliferation of digital recordings of our personal data, which makes any breach of archives increasingly dangerous. In mid-June, a well-known group of "digital extortionists" claimed to have hacked a computer managed by the European Council and offered the 429,000 copied files for sale. Until now, those responsible for that archive have responded to those questioned about this attack with the traditional "no comment."
At least a third criticism should be added to the two aforementioned. A law that prohibits the use of one social media platform and not another means, in concrete terms, that it favors one company over another. And we're talking about multi-million dollar interests here.
One of the main sources of confusion, for those who believe problems in this area can be easily solved, is the variety of regulations that restrict access to certain internet resources. To cite just a few examples within the European Union, creating a social media account is prohibited for minors under 14 in Austria, Italy, and Spain; for minors under 15 in France and Greece; and for minors under 16 in Germany, Hungary, and Luxembourg. Internationally, the bans vary from country to country, with the minimum age ranging from 13 to 18. In Australia, where social media access will be restricted to those over 16 as of December 2025, a recent government-commissioned study appears to have found that approximately 85% of minors have somehow circumvented the rule.
Debate over the development of an age-verification app has intensified over the past two years. A trial version of this program already exists, fully supported by European Union authorities. Despite numerous official announcements, the final release date remains uncertain. It should be noted, however, that it partially overlaps with the "digital document wallet" that all Europeans are expected to have by the end of 2026, barring an extension. The tangle of regulations regarding the digital sphere, both local and EU, is now limitless and is likely even AI-proof.
In Italy, several bills similar to the English one are stalled in Parliament, obviously aimed at protecting minors even more strictly than they already are. These proposals come from all political parties, but with a certain predominance of the "left," and here more than a couple of quotation marks would be needed.
Behind the much-vaunted focus on the protection of minors lies, without much success, another, much more ambitious goal: to control people and the ideas they express when they communicate with others online. There is only one way to achieve this: to identify individuals, or, in other words, to ban anonymity on the Internet.
Among the latest initiatives pushing in this direction is the announcement of yet another social network, currently still in its "test phase" and membership is by invitation only. Here's its brief presentation: "We're building W - a social media platform built in Europe, for the world. Governed by European law, with data hosted on European infrastructure, and designed for human-to-human conversations around the world."
The main feature of this social network is that you must be identified to participate in discussions, which can be done via a dedicated mobile app. Needless to say, this is different from the one we mentioned above... It should also be noted that the initiative is from a Swedish company and therefore falls within the scope of commercial activities, which are notoriously for-profit and have little to do with freedom of communication.
Because, all things considered, the main driver is always the profit system, which has no qualms about targeting minors for social media advertising, constantly inventing new ways to capture their attention. It has even fewer qualms about supporting laws that limit freedom of communication regardless of age.
Pepsy
https://umanitanova.org/attacco-allanonimato-internet-pretesti-educativi-per-controllare-la-comunicazione/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten