The Liberal bill would force social media services — defined as traditional social media platforms, live-streaming services and adult content services focused on user-shared content — to restrict accounts for children under 16 years old.

However, services could seek an exemption if they implement what officials briefing reporters called adequate safeguards to protect children. The exemption wouldn't apply to adult content services.

AI chatbots will need measures to respond when a user expresses ideas of suicide or self harm or an intention to commit an act that could cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual, said officials. The bill would not require the companies behind the chatbots to report those interactions to police.

According to the bill, the maximum penalty for a violation would be either $10 million or three per cent of the company's gross global revenue — whichever is greater. Companies could face multiple penalties for repeated violations.

Full text of the bill here

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Yeah cause you know them kiddos wont be able to find ways around all and any locks big tech will put in place.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

On its own, that's not a very strong argument - underage people can still get their hands on alcohol, but the sale of it is still restricted.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I know I was pulling for people when I was 15, only because I was confident and now had ID. When I was in high school I “accidentally” found out how the school was blocking webpages and was helping people get to pages they wanted to go to by simply deleting the entry for said page. In the morning after the system rebooted all the locks and logs were erased so I could do it all over again, except for every other Thursday or the first Thursday of the month or something like that because that was when the IT guy came to the school to do their thing, this was in the early 2000’s so it was not hard. If I were to be in high school today, it may be a little more difficult if I did not know what I know now about networking. Funny story about how I found out how the school was blocking things was I misspelt an address and it brought me to some porn site, so I went looking for where the blocked sites where stored.

In no way am I saying this is going to stop kiddos from using the traditional, or whatever they called it, social media and AI. “Life it finds a way!” I am not calling the internet life I am calling the children life.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

The more I think about it, the more it's clear that the intent here isn't to prevent kids from using social media - it's about forcing the social media companies to implement "adequate safeguards."

There's an exception available for them if they do, and a surprisingly hefty fine for violations.

[–] Warehouse@piefed.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, but we don't have to give our biometric data to a US weapons manufacturer in order to purchase alcohol.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well, that's why I said "on its own" - the rest of the bill is extremely vulnerable to criticism.

load more comments (6 replies)