I mean I wouldn't say no if it comes down to that and I'd probably sign up to work for the technical effort.

Ban American corporate social media altogether? 🍁 Fedecan 🍁 take over with Lemmy, Mastodon, Pixelfed and Friendica?

collapsed inline media

Nevermind, we'll get invaded for that.

Yes and my point is that even if the corpo pays, which it absolutely should, that's not the end of the economic effect when that resource is used to the limit at the moment. We will end up paying too.

The demand for construction workers? If so, it could, if there's enough unemployment. Otherwise workers from some other industry would have to shift to construction. Creating a shortage in that industry. Switching industries is a more difficult process than getting an unemployed worker to work in construction though. But if there's already a labour shortage in the construction industry, then that answers the question. There isn't enough unemployment or shifting from other industries to fill the demand. And there seems to be one.

If there's underemployment in construction or higher unemployment, then yeah, the construction labour market would likely expand without much effect in housing and infrastructure.

Age-restricting corporate social media isn't "kicking teens offline." That's a funny straw man.

We need age restriction and regulations on moderation and algorithms. The latter alone won't solve the problems social media poses for developing brains. Age restrictions aren't bulletproof and that's alright. It's much easier to stop my child from smoking at the age of 10 when there's a smoming ban in place than when there isn't. I want it to be easier to raise them without developing prepubescent brain rot than not. And I think my neighbours would appreciate bringing up another Canadian that has their marbles intact.

E: Plenty parents outside of the terminally-online circles don't even realize they should restrict social media use at an early age.

E2: Tha fact that the Australian ban doesn't deal with the ID problem is a problem that I definitely would not want us to emulate. A problem in that it does not forbid ID collection by private corporations and it does not provide a privacy-preserving public service for proving age. Besides, Meta already knows the age of most of its users. A reasonable compliance criteria could be established that isn't 100% that would also be good enough, subject to regulatory audits.

I read about a cross-signing scheme where diff gov't agencies can cryptographically sign an ID that allows only partial information to be shared with any one service provider. It was done by some institutions in the nordics.

With that said, our government is already trusted with our personal ID information. Nothing stops us from creating public service which can be queried for age, which would only provide an answer after the explicit approval by the person through another channel (e.g. email to sign into gov't portal and approve the age query request). Then require service providers to use it. In fact Equifax already offers such a service without our consent but it costs money to query.

When unemployment is low in the construction sector, we can't have them pay. When they pay, they'll outbid us for workers who were previously building homes and public infrastructure. We'd either have to outbid cloud for these workers, or we'd pay by having higher housing prices and crumbling infrastructure, which incurs other social costs. Real resources are finite. The only way for us to not pay is for them to not build the power plants and datacenters. In a truly democratic system we'd be able to say no. In this system, capital outvotes us.

E: I'm not arguing that the corpos shouldn't pay. They should. I'm arguing the economic effect doesn't stop with that payment and we're still fucked.

I think you should read the latest US NatSec strategy that came out two weeks. Also the leaked bits about pushing several countries to leave the EU. The US and RU have a common interest in the EU breaking apart. One of them has much more resources and leverage than the other. For example a lot of the Russian gas was replaced with US gas. And that's just one point of significant leverage.

Clearly I addressed a specific part. One that has an outsized effect over the German system via its political system. If you can't see how those other aspects can be tackled inside Germany (and the EU) and why you can't rely on a conpetitor to stop, I can't help you. You're arguing to get an attacker to stop instead of tackling the vulnerabilities. That's not how security works.

Just in case anyone else is reading this and got confused - Israel and US are also actively running disinformation campaigns in Germany today. So if for some reason Russia stops doing it today, the problem remains as the US and Israel would continue and they don't have Germany's best interests in mind.

Also if you're going to pretend to engage in good faith, it helps not to downvote the person you're replying to.

E: Downvoting harder with your alt accounts isn't doing you any favours either.

Lies

That's not how many understand it. I'm pretty sure my extended family have no idea. Especially given they come from a country with proportional representation.

Exactly. This is like a treating one infected wound with topical agent while having sepsis. Uh, if Russia stops spreading fake news on Facebook, what about the US, or China, or Turkey, or Israel. The common variable is Facebook, Meta making money off this activity and the activity being aligned with Meta's anti-regulation interests. Social media corporations are the systemic issue here. Legislate responsibility for moderation for corporations operating in Germany and this shit is gonna drop off a cliff, by any actor.