3 ms·
I didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like
by wvenable 3y ago
I didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like you're agreeing with me.
As for legal considerations, it doesn't appear to matter that much.
- smcin 3y agoI disagreed emphatically with claiming "it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas." Most children online consume media and follow recommendations, ads and friend feeds, rather than intentionally searching for topics in a structured and coherent way. Doomscrolling, bingeing, mindless zombie mode, whatever. We may not like it but you're aware that's the way it actually is. As for legal considerations, it does matter: they define/limit the ability of YT, FB, TT et al. to build a profile and blend recommendations, ads and organic content. More so for under-18s and under-13s, more so where there are privacy laws (GDPR). If the US actually passed meaningful privacy laws this would have more effect.