4 ms·

As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I

As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I am all in for it. If you cannot smoke/drink till 21, you shouldn't be able to do Social media till then. It is that bad especially for children.

dmak 3y ago
That's really extreme. There are definitely better ways to manage it. Tiktok in Singapore has been very thoughtful in their approach which seems to be working.
- bluepizza 3y ago
  What are the ways? What has Tiktok done in Singapore? What makes it thoughtful? Why hasn't Tiktok done so in America?
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Extreme is my view to ban all social media as useless and dangerous means to keep people watching dangerous content endlessly just to show them advertisement s to make them feel inappropriate and buy their self confidence, probably just banning social media for under 21 is quite weak but at least is a start
impulser_ 3y ago
Yeah, but why not also ban candy, soda, junk food, video games ect? If we can't trust parents to parent their kids then why not ban everything that possibly could be bad for kids?
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Most of those things have become subject to both government regulation and industry self-policing, and there’s continual debate over whether there needs to be more done and what shape it might take. Just getting to that point with social media will be a big win. The social media industry came on quick and got a free pass for a while, but it’s now more mature and needs to become more mindful of its social consequences just the same as other industries. Whether that needs to come through bans and regulation or can be achieved through voluntary self-restraint is up to the big players and their egos.
  - 908087 3y ago
    [dead]
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Parents are not police, we as a society also need to define boundaries for what is bad, parents could also prevent their kids to go to work into mines when libertarians said that it was ok, but parents are not body guards, what if some parent is not fit and their kids take heroin? Is it ok for a kid to carry the effect of a life as toxic dependent because their parents couldn't police them well enough? If a kid is born with libertarians parents, should he suffer his whole life time just because hes born to retards? What I am saying is that why you and other corporativists think that its ok for kids to suffer if their parents aren’t able to show them a balanced way to live and approach tech?
- codegeek 3y ago
  I get your point. But we have to draw the line somewhere and Soda (even though addictive) is not something that has the same level of peer pressure and damage vector as Social Media. If all your 9 year old friends are on it, you bet you wanna be on it. I will also argue that things like Soda can harm you but are much easier to restrict compared to Social Media access and social media has compounding effects on your mind especially if you are a child.
- autoexec 3y ago
  By that logic I guess we shouldn't have rules against companies selling children food with ground up glass in it. If you can't trust parents to keep their kids from buying food with ground up glass in it, why not have the government ban everything that could be bad for kids right? Personally, I'm very much glad that the government doesn't allow companies to sell food to children with ground up glass in it no matter what individual parents do or don't allow and nothing about that ban on ground up glass in food means that we should also ban soda or candy. We can absolutely look at products and services that are actually harmful and deem them unacceptable for children without banning every other thing on the planet that might possibly be bad. Some states feel that Facebook has risen to the level where it's harmful enough to do something at the government level. I think that's probably what's needed since facebook has demonstrated that they're unwilling or unable to stop the harm they're causing without government intervention.
RandallBrown 3y ago
I'm not necessarily against putting an age limit on social media, but I can't for the life of me figure out a definition of what social media is that wouldn't be either useless for this purpose or make using the Internet impossible for kids.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I guess it could be up to the parents to decide. You could just block Facebook. Parents need to cooperate though so children that don't use all these toxic feed spyware kind of social media won't be social outsiders.
robertlagrant 3y ago
I agree that it's a bad idea to let kids do this, but... you can still smoke/drink at home if your parents let you.
katamarimambo 3y ago
A 20 year old person is already old enough to use Social Media, smoke and drink. By 2 years at least. Y'all insane.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  As someone who drunk at 18, I think it is too young. Alcohol is a drug just like coke, cannabis etc. By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction.
  - jpsouth 3y ago
    Counterpoint: You can reduce the potential for addiction with education as well, and no time better than an early age. In Europe it’s widely accepted young adults will drink, and we can do so as young as 14 in restaurants (that’s the lowest I know). Allowing it and not making young adults hide what they’re doing is so important. That way it can be regulated by a responsible adult, and someone on hand to make sure there’s a bucket, some water and a blanket with no danger or fear of recourse.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      Chronic (as in regular, not heavy) drinking causes changes in mood, increased stress and body function. A glass of wine a day for example. Reference: https://youtu.be/DkS1pkKpILY?si=SIn7pg3ebRGbHcXQ https://youtu.be/DkS1pkKpILY?si=SIn7pg3ebRGbHcXQ Alcohol is so ingrained in popular culture that criticising it is almost taboo. Culture will play a big part in what people under the legal age to buy consume with family. It can be a good think but I reckon once a month have a glass of wine.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction. This is empirically completely and utterly false; the US has far more alcoholics than many countries with a lower legal drinking age and responsible drinking cultures.
PenguinCoder 3y ago
When you treat people like children, they will act like one. Putting a law in place to _try and_ stop kids from being an adult, will result in even more grown up children. Part of being an adult is dealing with stuff you don't like and handling such, reasonably maturely. Let the kids learn not to touch the hot stove.

dmak 3y ago

That's really extreme. There are definitely better ways to manage it. Tiktok in Singapore has been very thoughtful in their approach which seems to be working.

bluepizza 3y ago
What are the ways? What has Tiktok done in Singapore? What makes it thoughtful? Why hasn't Tiktok done so in America?
lnxg33k1 3y ago
Extreme is my view to ban all social media as useless and dangerous means to keep people watching dangerous content endlessly just to show them advertisement s to make them feel inappropriate and buy their self confidence, probably just banning social media for under 21 is quite weak but at least is a start

impulser_ 3y ago

Yeah, but why not also ban candy, soda, junk food, video games ect? If we can't trust parents to parent their kids then why not ban everything that possibly could be bad for kids?

swatcoder 3y ago
Most of those things have become subject to both government regulation and industry self-policing, and there’s continual debate over whether there needs to be more done and what shape it might take. Just getting to that point with social media will be a big win. The social media industry came on quick and got a free pass for a while, but it’s now more mature and needs to become more mindful of its social consequences just the same as other industries. Whether that needs to come through bans and regulation or can be achieved through voluntary self-restraint is up to the big players and their egos.
- 908087 3y ago
  [dead]
lnxg33k1 3y ago
Parents are not police, we as a society also need to define boundaries for what is bad, parents could also prevent their kids to go to work into mines when libertarians said that it was ok, but parents are not body guards, what if some parent is not fit and their kids take heroin? Is it ok for a kid to carry the effect of a life as toxic dependent because their parents couldn't police them well enough? If a kid is born with libertarians parents, should he suffer his whole life time just because hes born to retards? What I am saying is that why you and other corporativists think that its ok for kids to suffer if their parents aren’t able to show them a balanced way to live and approach tech?
codegeek 3y ago
I get your point. But we have to draw the line somewhere and Soda (even though addictive) is not something that has the same level of peer pressure and damage vector as Social Media. If all your 9 year old friends are on it, you bet you wanna be on it. I will also argue that things like Soda can harm you but are much easier to restrict compared to Social Media access and social media has compounding effects on your mind especially if you are a child.
autoexec 3y ago
By that logic I guess we shouldn't have rules against companies selling children food with ground up glass in it. If you can't trust parents to keep their kids from buying food with ground up glass in it, why not have the government ban everything that could be bad for kids right? Personally, I'm very much glad that the government doesn't allow companies to sell food to children with ground up glass in it no matter what individual parents do or don't allow and nothing about that ban on ground up glass in food means that we should also ban soda or candy. We can absolutely look at products and services that are actually harmful and deem them unacceptable for children without banning every other thing on the planet that might possibly be bad. Some states feel that Facebook has risen to the level where it's harmful enough to do something at the government level. I think that's probably what's needed since facebook has demonstrated that they're unwilling or unable to stop the harm they're causing without government intervention.

RandallBrown 3y ago

I'm not necessarily against putting an age limit on social media, but I can't for the life of me figure out a definition of what social media is that wouldn't be either useless for this purpose or make using the Internet impossible for kids.

rightbyte 3y ago
I guess it could be up to the parents to decide. You could just block Facebook. Parents need to cooperate though so children that don't use all these toxic feed spyware kind of social media won't be social outsiders.

robertlagrant 3y ago

I agree that it's a bad idea to let kids do this, but... you can still smoke/drink at home if your parents let you.

katamarimambo 3y ago

A 20 year old person is already old enough to use Social Media, smoke and drink. By 2 years at least. Y'all insane.

quickthrower2 3y ago
As someone who drunk at 18, I think it is too young. Alcohol is a drug just like coke, cannabis etc. By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction.
- jpsouth 3y ago
  Counterpoint: You can reduce the potential for addiction with education as well, and no time better than an early age. In Europe it’s widely accepted young adults will drink, and we can do so as young as 14 in restaurants (that’s the lowest I know). Allowing it and not making young adults hide what they’re doing is so important. That way it can be regulated by a responsible adult, and someone on hand to make sure there’s a bucket, some water and a blanket with no danger or fear of recourse.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Chronic (as in regular, not heavy) drinking causes changes in mood, increased stress and body function. A glass of wine a day for example. Reference: https://youtu.be/DkS1pkKpILY?si=SIn7pg3ebRGbHcXQ https://youtu.be/DkS1pkKpILY?si=SIn7pg3ebRGbHcXQ Alcohol is so ingrained in popular culture that criticising it is almost taboo. Culture will play a big part in what people under the legal age to buy consume with family. It can be a good think but I reckon once a month have a glass of wine.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction. This is empirically completely and utterly false; the US has far more alcoholics than many countries with a lower legal drinking age and responsible drinking cultures.

PenguinCoder 3y ago

When you treat people like children, they will act like one. Putting a law in place to _try and_ stop kids from being an adult, will result in even more grown up children. Part of being an adult is dealing with stuff you don't like and handling such, reasonably maturely. Let the kids learn not to touch the hot stove.