News: 0180791170

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Social Networks Agree to Be Rated On Their Teen Safety Efforts (yahoo.com)

(Saturday February 14, 2026 @05:52PM (EditorDavid) from the PG-13 dept.)


Meta, TikTok, Snap and other social neteworks agreed this week to be rated on their teen safety efforts, [1]reports the Los Angeles Times , "amid rising concern about whether the world's largest social media platforms are doing enough to protect the mental health of young people."

> The Mental Health Coalition, a collective of organizations focused on destigmatizing mental health issues, said Tuesday that it is launching standards and a new rating system for online platforms. For the [2]Safe Online Standards (S.O.S.) program, an independent panel of global experts will evaluate companies on parameters including safety rules, design, moderation and mental health resources. TikTok, Snap and Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — will be the first companies to be graded. Discord, YouTube, Pinterest, Roblox and Twitch have also agreed to participate, the coalition said in a news release.

>

> "These standards provide the public with a meaningful way to evaluate platform protections and hold companies accountable — and we look forward to more tech companies signing up for the assessments," Antigone Davis, vice president and global head of safety at Meta, said in a statement... The ratings will be color-coded, and companies that perform well on the tests will get a blue shield badge that signals they help reduce harmful content on the platform and their rules are clear. Those that fall short will receive a red rating, indicating they're not reliably blocking harmful content or lack proper rules. Ratings in other colors indicate whether the platforms have partial protection or whether their evaluations haven't been completed yet.



[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-tiktok-others-agree-teen-110000655.html

[2] https://www.safeonlinestandards.org/about


Wrong Way (Score:2)

by sizzlinkitty ( 1199479 )

We should be rating parents on their child care and taking kids away from bad parents.

Re: Wrong Way (Score:3)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

Where do you take them to? Seems like you have half a plan but it sounds more half assed to me.

Rating (Score:2)

by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

Three. I will give them a three.

*Scale to be determined.

Censorship by any other name (Score:2)

by Sethra ( 55187 )

"Think about the children" has been a rallying cry for draconian laws, censorship, and erosion of privacy for decades. And that's because it works - it's a legitimate desire to keep kids away from the trash the internet has become.

But the target is wrong - the target needs to be holding the PARENTS responsible for their children's upbringing. Any parent that allowed their child to wander down Skid Row would be arrested for child endangerment - the same should apply to parents who don't restrict their chil

Re: (Score:1)

by 0123456 ( 636235 )

The goal is to turn the entire population into children so they won't rebel against their masters.

Also to force ID on all social media accounts by demanding everyone prove they're not a teen.

Re: (Score:2)

by SeaFox ( 739806 )

> Also to force ID on all social media accounts by demanding everyone prove they're not a teen.

I feel like trying to make everyone ID on social media for safety reasons is a lost cause because it's not hard to create homespun communication networks now. I've recently been playing around with notification services for my home server's apps, and I had a self-hosted [1]ntfy [ntfy.sh] server running at one point. Every connected device/application is a node on the network, and anything is capable of sending messages that are seen in the topic feed. This isn't designed to be a social networking service, but since you

[1] https://ntfy.sh/

Why do they need to "agree"? (Score:2)

by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )

If I want to rate anything online - from a restaurant to a store to a product or service of any kind - I'm free to do so. As long as I don't lie, or commit libel or slander, then the entity I'm reviewing has jack shit to say about it. Why wouldn't the same apply to social media?

I can see companies cooperating with ratings efforts, with failure to do so possibly resulting in a poor rating and/or a note that no rating can be given because the site isn't forthcoming with vital information. But agreeing ? That s

'Twas the night before crisis, and all through the house,
Not a program was working not even a browse.
The programmers were wrung out too mindless to care,
Knowing chances of cutover hadn't a prayer.
The users were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of inquiries danced in their heads.
When out in the lobby there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my tube to see what was the matter.
And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a Super Programmer, oblivious to fear.
More rapid than eagles, his programs they came,
And he whistled and shouted and called them by name;
On Update! On Add! On Inquiry! On Delete!
On Batch Jobs! On Closing! On Functions Complete!
His eyes were glazed over, his fingers were lean,
From Weekends and nights in front of a screen.
A wink of his eye, and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread...
-- "Twas the Night before Crisis"