3/24/2026 at 10:50:08 PM
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption:> The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
The New York case has explicitly gone after their support of end-to-end encryption as a target: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...
by Aurornis
3/24/2026 at 11:53:24 PM
The correct nuance here is...* Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent)
* Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice)
In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus.
Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that without supervision / some setting that the user agent is operated by a child intend to allow their children to interact with strangers. This tends to work out better in more controlled and limited circumstances where the adults involved have the resources to provide suitable supervision.
At the same time, any requirements should apply only to commercial products. Community (gratis / not for profit) efforts presumably reflect the needs of a given community.
by mjevans
3/25/2026 at 12:25:15 AM
> Classifying accounts as child accountsIt's ok to drive Dad's truck unless he catches you and tells you no.
by kelseyfrog
3/24/2026 at 11:45:54 PM
I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.by pylua
3/24/2026 at 11:49:10 PM
I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.by fourside
3/24/2026 at 11:57:26 PM
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.by skybrian
3/25/2026 at 12:35:57 AM
Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternativesby polyomino
3/25/2026 at 12:45:48 AM
True, it's never going to be 100%, but at least it's a tractable problem for parents. Enough to change what the culture considers "normal," anyway.by skybrian
3/25/2026 at 12:00:18 AM
[flagged]by kelseyfrog
3/25/2026 at 12:35:52 AM
I believe Zuckerberg has a term for people who willingly break online anonymity because someone with a domain name and website asks them to.by genthree
3/25/2026 at 12:05:04 AM
Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.by throwaway27727
3/25/2026 at 12:06:12 AM
We need a way to do this online.by triceratops
3/25/2026 at 12:11:26 AM
> Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name.What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before?
Some establishments, as part of their business practice, require identification.
by kelseyfrog
3/25/2026 at 12:24:39 AM
And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.by triceratops
3/25/2026 at 12:30:39 AM
We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves.
Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes becoming more dangerous and thus more age-restricted.
It's also like consumer credit cards. Remember that in 1985 Bank of America just mailed out 60,000 unsolicited credit cards to residents of Fresno, CA without application, age verification, or identity check. They just landed in people's mailboxes, including those of minors. Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements. My point is that systems can, and do become more dangerous overtime. Not all, but not none.
Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.
by kelseyfrog
3/25/2026 at 6:58:43 AM
>We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.Do we not? Sellers often don't just look at IDs now, they scan them into their system, and naturally, keep and sell your identity info, purchase data, and anything else they have access to.
>Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.
This basically makes it clear. The problem is not that children are on social media. The problem is that "social media" has been allowed to become a platform for exploitation and manipulation by their owners. Adults aren't free from this either.
by duskdozer
3/25/2026 at 12:44:39 AM
Digital age verification laws I've read also literally specifically ban recording that information, unlike in person. People were arguing with me that companies would decide they need to retain that info for audit purposes when there are no audit requirements and when it's illegal to store it for any reason.by ndriscoll
3/25/2026 at 1:32:18 AM
> People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves> Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements
I have no idea if you're arguing for or against verification. You dismissed the idea that age verification is a slipper slope to more stringent ID requirements. Then provided an example where the exact opposite happened.
by triceratops
3/25/2026 at 2:05:14 AM
I'm not arguing that social media will get worse, I'm arguing that it has gotten worse. A slippery slope argues that something will happen. I'm pointing out that it has happened. Huge difference.Even more, my point is that rules, regulations, and requirements adapt when these changes become unbearable. That has happened with social media, therefore a change in rules, regulations, and requirements is deserved.
by kelseyfrog
3/24/2026 at 11:59:46 PM
I'm not comfortable with the idea that children's private messages would be exposed to thousands of social media workers and government employees.by whatshisface
3/25/2026 at 2:45:42 AM
In a way, this is like saying that one trusts total strangers in some random large tech company and total strangers in government agencies to read and/or manipulate conversations that kids have. This also paves the way to disallow E2EE for other classes of people based on arbitrary criteria. I don’t believe this is good for society overall.by newscracker
3/25/2026 at 6:40:22 AM
The reason we are having this discussion, is because the private route worked up to a point.Firms have a fiduciary duty to shareholders and profit.
On the other hand, You ultimately decide the rules and goals that operate government organizations, and do not have a profit maximization target.
They aren’t the same tool, and they work for different situations.
The E2EE slippery slope is a different challenge, and for that I have no thoughts
by intended
3/25/2026 at 12:18:31 AM
You just need to provide the government with your name and address and the name and address of the counter party every time you send an encrypted message.If you don't support this you're obviously a pedo nazi terrorist.
by noosphr
3/25/2026 at 7:11:16 AM
There is no reason kids should use so called smart devices, except making certain companies richer. Kids have had a healthy development without such crap for thousands of years. We don't discuss what percentage of alcohol should be allowed in beer and wine for kids.by usr1106
3/25/2026 at 12:05:37 AM
I have kids. I don't want creeps and predators spying on their conversations with friends.by triceratops
3/25/2026 at 12:09:44 AM
That's true, I didn't consider thatby pylua
3/25/2026 at 12:26:27 AM
https://web.archive.org/web/20210522003136/https://blog.nucy...by jMyles
3/24/2026 at 11:49:00 PM
The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.by hsbauauvhabzb
3/25/2026 at 6:52:39 AM
And the effectiveness for the stated goal is also often questionable.by vaylian
3/25/2026 at 12:10:16 AM
It does seem like it could potentially be used to enforce mass surveillance over the people of the United Statesby pylua
3/25/2026 at 12:18:52 AM
Alphabet can grep your emails, Amazon has literal microphones and cameras in most peoples housesThat ship has sailed
by simmerup
3/25/2026 at 12:50:16 AM
Yes google analyzes everything you upload to it and if it finds a violation will report to the proper gov agencies.It is actually terrifying . If you write something out of context or upload an image out of context you can be in big trouble.
by pylua
3/25/2026 at 6:41:24 AM
Well, the problem is that the “don’t do it” arguments have children as the collateral damage.We are at a point where we are picking and choosing collateral damage targets.
by intended
3/25/2026 at 2:41:34 AM
This is the core issue.We know that this isn't really going to reduce harm for children, we know Meta is not seriously going to suffer or change, and we know this is going to be used as a cudgel to beat down privacy and increase surveillance.
by ronsor
3/25/2026 at 7:57:52 AM
Why is it so important that kids have access to the internet anyway that we're willing to sacrifice both our privacy and freedom of speech rights for it when we already know it's damaging their mental health?We don't need all this privacy invasion if we just didn't give kids a smartphone with a data plan.
by armada651
3/25/2026 at 6:34:24 AM
Rock meet hard place?Harm to kids is actually happening, and this is always going to be a hot button topic.
E2E is critical for our current ability to communicate online, but will be a lower priority when pitted against child safety.
Fighting the good fight is one thing, fighting for the sake of it, without a plan that addresses the tactical reality is another altogether.
Personally, I think E2E will be defended, but it’s becoming a lightning rod for attention. As if removing encryption will solve the emerging issues.
I suspect providing alternatives to champion, such as privacy preserving ways to verify age, will force a conversation on why E2E needs to go.
by intended
3/24/2026 at 11:03:32 PM
The Clipper chip is coming back.by bitwize
3/25/2026 at 2:45:14 AM
This is a good thing for “social” media. If you use any social media app (especially those owned by Meta) you should assume that absolutely everything you do is for full public consumption. Maybe these changes will make everyone stop thinking that anything is private when using “social” media apps.by bdangubic
3/24/2026 at 11:36:44 PM
> Many will cheer for any case that hurts MetaAbsolutely. Particularly where they've been found to be guilty.
> but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption
Why _social media_ companies are backtracking. I'm extremely nonplussed by this outcome.
> concerns that allowing teens
Yes, because that's what we all had in mind when considering the victims and perpetrators of these crimes.
by themafia
3/24/2026 at 11:34:11 PM
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security?We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
by gzread
3/24/2026 at 11:35:39 PM
> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chatsThat can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?
by cristoperb
3/25/2026 at 7:03:00 AM
Well, I've seen services describe having "E2EE" where one end is your computer and the other end is their server, so...by duskdozer
3/25/2026 at 7:12:04 AM
The metadata is still unencrypted. That also reveals quite a bit.by vaylian
3/24/2026 at 11:37:03 PM
In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform.Has anyone actually audited it?
by gzread
3/24/2026 at 11:43:41 PM
Probably their auditors? Lying about this would be tantamount to (very serious) securities fraud. Not sure what you're basing on your allegations on besides "trust me bro"by babelfish
3/24/2026 at 11:53:31 PM
[dead]by Supermancho
3/24/2026 at 11:38:06 PM
I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.by interestpiqued
3/24/2026 at 11:42:56 PM
E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.by SAI_Peregrinus
3/24/2026 at 11:49:04 PM
Which is technically possible.by throwaway173738
3/24/2026 at 11:42:15 PM
The first two E's in E2EE stand for end. From one end to the other. So no, Meta can't. Or put another way... if they can read those messages, then it's not E2EE.by markdown