A period of time in which minors are prohibited from accessing social networks, profiles are private by default, and the consent of teens over 12 is required to publish their photos or prohibit their use by minors under a certain age. These are some of the proposals submitted by the parliamentary blocs to Land minors in digital environments Which is now being negotiated in the House of Representatives. The rule, promoted by the Ministry of Youth and Children, reached the House of Representatives a few months ago, where the parties expressed their unanimous will to restrict children’s access to networks and demand more responsibilities from the platforms.
In total, A total of 266 amendments were registered To the Justice Committee, which must decide in the coming weeks what new features the text does and does not include, before the law is presented to a vote, as expected, in the last plenary session of the year, on 11 December. Its approval is currently up in the air; It will depend on how the negotiations between the two groups go, especially with Gantz, who has already expressed his complete separation from the government, and whose votes (unless the People’s Party votes for him) will be essential to achieving the absolute majority that the law needs, due to its organic nature.
The standard prepared by the administration headed by Sera Rijo includes the recommendations of the expert group of 50 experts appointed by the executive branch. To diagnose the impact of technologies on minors. The head of government himself, Pedro Sánchez, has emphasized on more than one occasion the urgency of this “groundbreaking” law in Europe, and just over two weeks ago he requested the groups’ support so that he could move forward “with broad parliamentary consensus, above all calculations.”
The text issued by the Council of Ministers stipulates measures such as sentencing anyone to imprisonment for up to two years deep fake, Default restraining orders The age allowed to open a profile on social networks is raised to 16 years. Likewise, it makes it necessary for all technology devices to come from the factory with built-in parental controls. Measures with which he is considering not complying Fines of up to two million euros This will be supplemented by those proposed by the various parliamentary groups in their amendments, which you have seen 20 minutes:
Hours without minors and imprisonment for inciting viral challenges
he pFor example, it suggests a “digital respite schedule” that prevents children under 16 from accessing social networks. Between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am Popular figures are also advocating that publishing content that incites violence should be punished with 1 to 3 years (or fines ranging from 6 to 12 months). Viral challenges “Which endangers the health or safety of a minor. Likewise, they demand prison sentences ranging from 2 to 4 years and the removal of any content that would harm the life of a minor.” Incitement to suicide Self-harm by minors and people with disabilities.
Default age limit and private profiles
Another new feature of the law is that it raises the age at which minors can create a profile on social networks from 14 to 16 years. Regarding this procedure, there is a difference of opinion between groups, as there are those who suggest leaving it at the age of 14, but on the condition that the parents agree to open the account. This is the case for the PP, but also Chronic kidney diseasewhich admits to this newspaper that although its proposal is “more lenient”, it is in line with what has been advocated in the European Parliament, which last week requested a ban on access to networks for minors under the age of 13.
“We understand that networking plays a very important role in society, soYes, we want minors between the ages of 14 and 16 to have access (Always with the consent of parents or guardians) and from the age of 16 with their own consent,” sources from the Republican group defend this newspaper.
Along these lines, the ERC also proposes that any profile to be created by a minor, Private “Default”. In the same amendment, they impose other obligations on the platforms, on those who want them Ban “addictive designs” Or “mechanisms that encourage compulsive or dependent use.” Similarly, in another amendment signed with the Bildoo Foundation, the two amendments stipulate that both manufacturers and digital service providers must conduct “risk assessments related to harmful content” for minors and agree to measures to mitigate them; And they want to force the platforms to do so Disabled by default “Algorithmic Recommendation Based on the profiles of minors.”
Ask teens for permission to post their photos
For her part, He adds In its amendment, it is suggested that any picture or information related to the child be published on social networks More than 12 yearsThe consent of the minor himself is required, who will also have the right to request the removal of any content published without his permission. “It is necessary to ensure respect for the right of children and adolescents to privacy, confidentiality and the protection of their personal data and You have the right to be heard And that their opinion is duly taken into account based on their age and maturity,” he defended the views of Yolanda Díaz.
Together against the default restraining order
In one of his amendments, together It is proposed to delete the section of the law that includes the penalty of removal from virtual environments, which aims to prevent aggressors from accessing or communicating with their victims via social networks, forums, communication platforms, or any other virtual space. For those who are independent with this procedure There is a risk that it will lead to a “complete blocking of Internet access.” “This is a completely disproportionate measure taking into account the absolute dependence of the citizen on the use of the Internet for countless activities of daily life,” justifies the document signed by its spokeswoman Pilar Calvo.
Furthermore, the fact that this ban on Internet access is not limited only to crimes against minors, but also to any crime for which a person has been convicted for less than 10 years, argues Juntz. “It jeopardizes the freedom of expression or opinion of any journalist, politician or content creator.” Whether such contents can arbitrarily be considered judicially “dangerous.”
The “digital contract” between parents and children
Junts also suggests creating a “parent digital contract,” which allows the family “agreed rules on responsible use of technology.” This contract, the wording of which must then be detailed in a regulation, implies a “formal agreement” between parents and children, In case of “conflict”, you can go to court (In this case to the judge responsible for family affairs), “who will decide on the basis of the best interest of the minor and the proportionality of the measures agreed upon.”