can y'all running sharkey instances and still allowing minors respond with your instance?

Amber

can y'all running sharkey instances and still allowing minors respond with your instance? I have an influx of minors trying to register and I feel bad rejecting them without giving them a place to go.

Amber

genuinely heart breaking but at the same time I'm not compromising on the 18+ rule.

https://cdn.transfem.social/files/6c6627af-bcfd-4ef6-b649-a6d8d217d65b.webp

Sparkles and Associates

@[email protected] (Sparkles) lemme ask @kanako

honestly the ageism drives me nuts

Amber

I'll use my admin email to tell them where they can register. I just need a list of instances. I don't remember all of the sharkey instances allowing minors rn

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I honestly don't think it's fair to call it ageism. Moderating an instance with minors is hard, on the count of "being responsible, keeping them safe, and ideally not going to prison", and while I vehemently dislike the idea of minors basically becoming radioactive to any instance admin, I can't exactly blame people for not wanting the risk. Especially if you've learned how hard this is the hard way already. It's not like instances change to 18+ for no reason.

Latte macchiato :blobcoffee: :ablobcat_longlong:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
16 is the reasonably lowest you can go if you host in Europe due to the insanely higher requirements for handling data by <16 yo users.

pancake :butterfly_::neofox_lesbian:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] especially if the instance in all ways looks like a safe place for a certain sensitive minority

This is why Discord has such a shitty reputation, because the social connections become much more sensitive, and many people simply don't have the energy to deal with that shit

There are many minors online, but it's a pick-two triangle of: explicitly safe place, allowing minors, and having relatively open moderation

Latte macchiato :blobcoffee: :ablobcat_longlong:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services

[...] the processing of the personal data of a child shall be lawful where the child is at least 16 years old.
Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.
The controller shall make reasonable efforts to verify in such cases that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child, taking into consideration available technology.

I have no means to verify this.

Amber

This post is deleted!

Sparkles and Associates

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] (Sparkles) so you think minors shouldnt exist on the internet?

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I didn't read it like that at all, just, that a space that allows them needs to make different concessions in terms of moderation - particularly, having a closer eye on it, stepping in more often in ways users might find annoying, and dedicating a lot more attention and brain space to specifically keeping minors safe. and it's valid that not every space is able and willing to do that.

Amber

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] no. we're frustrated at multiple things, first the abusive household situations minors are trapped in, their need for connecting to their peers and the fact society as a whole ignores this problem, opting to cut minors out of the equation. it's really hard to provide a safe space for minors to be on, especially when you have to take into account what happens when those abusive parents find out their minor had an account on transfem.social. the risk of bogus legal proceedings, threats and all sorts of other shit. i mean you see how parents talk to school boards regarding what books their children are allowed to read in the classroom, and that's so much less nuanced than being exposed to queer communities that talk about serious topics in depth.

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] and having minors "just exist" in adult spaces and pretend they aren't there is not an acceptable option, for all the obvious reasons. so there'll always be extra friction there.

Amber

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] yes, pretending they don't exist and not taking care opens them up for exploitation. you can't just hand wave over that, otherwise you're going to end up with groomers on your instance.

pancake :butterfly_::neofox_lesbian:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Please don't put words in our mouth

Minors, have and should have access to the internet

However, they need a set of safety guards that adults don't and not everyone has the bandwidth to provide

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I kinda skipped over the added legal risks besides my initial very light "and not going to prison", but yeah I'm intensely aware of all that too, and depending on what jurisdictions may believe they can make your life unpleasant, that alone may be plenty of good reason to not accept minors, for better or worse. Especially under 16 they're kind of nightmares in terms of consent for data processing, more conservative jurisdictions may want to keep them away from "queer propaganda" and the like, and that's not to mention the hell you'll be into if god forbid one of them posts lewd content (which may amount to CSAM legally speaking, if you're unlucky) or something actually happened to them and you were in a position to prevent it but did not. If I was an admin I'd be reasonably terrified of at least some of those outcomes, and sometimes it feels like a bunch of instances that allow minors mostly do it because they haven't thought about any of this, and not because they've weighed all these risks and decided they can handle them.

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] like. this is stuff big corporations spend absurd amounts of compliance costs on and still regularly get fined to hell over. if you're a small operator and find yourself on the wrong end of a regulatory or police agency that thinks you did a bad with minors, I would not want to be in your shoes. Not trying to fearmonger, nor do I like this is how it is, but... shrugs in mild despair
Obviously I feel particularly bad because the internet is often the only safe space for queer teens in unfriendly environments, but at the same time that very fact motivates some of this legalisation in places

pancake :butterfly_::neofox_lesbian:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I think big corporations should try not running predatory ads if they hate being fined

ash/nova :neocat_flag_genderfluid:

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] absolutely fair point. Similarly some of them do a genuinely godawful job at keeping minors and their data safe. I absolutely wouldn't bet you're much better off if you do actually try, or if you make an innocent mistake, looking at past enforcement actions.

Sparkles and Associates

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] (Sparkles) didn't mean to attack or put words in anyone's mouth, just spiraling down and also feeling under attack

I think I should get out of this conversation because I'll just continue talking nonsense

I'm very sorry