Google's Stance on Age Verification Sparks Debate and a Hint of Irony

In a startling move that may raise an eyebrow or two, Google is fighting the concept of age verification for children on online platforms. The tech titan has set its sights on establishing guidelines for children's online safety through a new legislative framework. It's almost as if you're watching a superhero fight for the criminals, except in this situation, Google is the superhero—or so it thinks.

Google's "Legislative Framework to Protect Children and Teens Online" is the company's response to legislative measures aimed at protecting children online. In an unexpected plot twist, Google rejects any legislation requiring web services to check the age of its young users before providing them access. It's almost like a virtual ID-check bouncer that Google wants to avoid.

Utah, for example, recently approved legislation requiring social media firms to check the age of anyone wanting to create or maintain an account. However, Google, in its wisdom, argues that such age verification techniques may result in unfavorable trade-offs and may even prevent children from accessing their prized online worlds. After all, who wants to be the one to derail a teen's desire to scroll through cat memes?

Google highlights that "good legislative models" can push companies to prioritize safety and privacy while still allowing children and teens to enjoy a world of online activities in a statement that reads like a classic instance of trying to have your cake and eat it, too. However, Google's underlying message is clear: age verification is not the way to go. Instead, they suggest that governments focus on the big picture and avoid requiring extra personal information or identification.

When it comes to age verification, Google has some unusual distinctions in mind. They argue that "data-intrusive methods" such as using official IDs to check age should be limited to services dealing with high-risk content such as alcohol, gambling, or porn. Yes, you read that correctly—Google is all about keeping kids away from pornographic content. When things get too hot and spicy on the internet, it appears Google is okay with a digital chaperone.

But here's when things become very interesting. Instead of implementing age verification through legislation, Google contends that online providers should simply "prioritize the best interests of children and teens" when creating their products. It's worth mentioning that Google's approach comes four years after the company was fined $170 million by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for abusing children's privacy.

When the FTC discovered that Google and YouTube had been secretly gathering personal information from children in order to make a quick buck by targeting them with advertising, they were not pleased. The FTC ordered YouTube to establish a method to identify child-directed content and prohibit targeted adverts from invading these channels as part of its penance.

In an odd turn of events, Google's framework now advises that laws be enacted to prohibit targeted advertising for children and teenagers. Senator Ed Markey had previously introduced the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), which would prohibit targeted advertising to kids. It's as if Google is assuming the moral high ground despite the fact that the FTC pushed it there.

With a touch of irony, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan proudly announced that the platform does not provide tailored adverts to children. However, a recent Adalytics analysis suggests otherwise, claiming that YouTube continues to transmit targeted adverts to kids. In reaction, Google dismissed the report as "deeply flawed and uninformed," as if they were the all-powerful savior.

In an unexpected twist, Senators Marsha Blackburn and Ed Markey joined forces and asked the FTC to investigate the incident. It's almost as if the characters are in a legal thriller where the heroes and villains alternate roles.

Read next: Apple's Green Image Under Scrutiny: Are Their Claims All Crunch and No Core?
Previous Post Next Post