5 ms·
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And
by andy99 3y ago
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.
- soco 3y agoIs there an alternative? Self-control - as we have now - brought us here. If the government shouldn't step in then the only other option left (only I can see) is magic. And we have a bad record with magic.
- JoshTko 3y agoI used to want no govt intrusion for this. Then I understood how there are teams of PHDs tweaking feed to maximize addition at each social network. I think there could be even limits, or some sort of tax on gen pop.
- protocolture 3y agoIt would be less imposing on the populace if you just demanded a government hit squad kill those PHD's instead of demanding everyone submit to some onerous government crapware to access the internet.
- JoshTko 3y agoThere are plenty of middle ground approaches - one possible one: App default would be restricted time use. To get unrestrxistricted use you use a driver's license to authenticate birthdate only with OS. Mobile OS only confirming with app that user is above age requirement (does not share birthdate). App can only query if user is above 18yrs and nothing else. Easy peasy.
- protocolture 3y agoSo more crapware?
- matthewdgreen 3y agoSeveral governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets through with them.
- rschneid 3y ago>effectively banned In my opinion, these governments haven't implemented 'effective' bans (though maybe chilling, as you say) but primarily created awkward new grey markets for the personal data that these policies rely on for theatrics. Remember when China 'banned' youth IDs from playing online games past 10PM? I think a bunch of grandparents became gamers around the same time... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8
- seanw444 3y agoWhich is exactly what happens for markets that are desirable enough. We compare bans of things not enough people care about, to bans of things that people are willing to do crazy things for. They don't yield the same results.
- monkeynotes 3y agoNo policy is 100% effective. Kids still get into alcohol, but the policy is sound.
- rft 3y agoAnother example is some Korean games requiring essentially a Korean ID to play. A few years ago there was a game my guild was hyped about and we played the Korean version a bit. You more or less bought the identity of some Korean guy via a service that was explicitly setup for this. Worked surprisingly well and was pretty streamlined.
- 3y ago
- OJFord 3y agoWe don't even have to speculate, isn't it already the case for <13yo? Or is just Europe? Anyway - yeah, of course they're still on it. Expect less compliance and harder enforcement the older they are, not more/easier.
- samtho 3y agoThe only protection in the Us is technically “collection of personal information” via COPPA[0] which you can argue would kneecap social media. Any parent can provide consent for their child, however. Children themselves can also just click the button that says they are over 13 if it gets them what they want. [0]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-onl...
- loceng 3y agoSo, maybe it a law - but requiring parents-guardians to enforce it, and not the state - sounds like a reasonable inbetween?
- qup 3y agoI think it should just be opt-out. A parent can opt-out without any stated reason, easily, and overrule the law. So kids get a social media "license," maybe.
- yew 3y agoThere are degrees of enforceability. When I was first getting online, the expectation was that you at least had to be bright enough to lie about your age. Now I have to occasionally prune my timeline after it fills up with "literally a minor." Even an annoyance tax might have some positive effect. Scare the pastel death-threats back into their hole...
- arcticbull 3y agoIt seems like you are in favor of something that requires coordination, but don't believe in coordination. Is there a different way you think this could be achieved?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI don't believe in the disbelief of coordination so it seems like we're at a bit on an impasse. Please expound.
- m_mueller 3y agoI think GP means the coordination between parents, and I agree on that: if you can’t get a strong majority of parents to agree on keeping their children off of social media & smart phones, you as parents have the choice between two outcomes: enforcing isolation vs. letting social media slip through and just trying to delay as much as possible. Almost all parents either don’t care or opt for the second option (which I also think is the better one), but the dynamics today are that between 10-12yo the pressure to get your kid a smartphone will mount and you have to give in at some point. Being able to wait till 16 would be much better IMO.
- ajhurliman 3y agoWe have a ban on gambling for minors, so if you see social media as more harmful than gambling (personally, I do) it probably makes sense.
- monkeynotes 3y agoGambling is outright banned for a majority of regions in the US, not just kids. I don't think they are equally bad, just different bad. Gambling is addictive, and it destroys people. Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society.
- ribosometronome 3y ago>Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society. It's interesting how every generation seems to decry new forms of media as eroding the fabric of society. They said it about video games, television, music, movies, etc. I'm sure we're right this time, though.
- monkeynotes 3y agoYeah, none of those are comparable. TV never lead to children bullying each other anonymously which then leads to kids committing suicide.
- bee_rider 3y agoTelevision clearly did something pretty significant to society. Cable news makes the country more polarized, that we didn’t do anything about it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a problem. We just missed and now the problem is baked into the status quo. Video games are typically fiction, so the ability to pass propaganda through them is usually a little more limited. It isn’t impossible, just different. Social media is a pretty bad news source for contentious issues. We should be pretty alarmed that people are getting their news there.
- angra_mainyu 3y agoApples-to-oranges comparison. Plenty has been written already on the ravaging effects of social media on society and it's pretty plain to see. https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-me... > Rates of sexual activity have been in decline for years, but the drop is most pronounced for adults under age 25 (Gen Z). > For Gen Z, a rise in sexlessness has coincided with a decline in mental health. > Sexual activity can boost mood and relieve stress and may serve as a protective factor against anxiety and depressive disorders. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202209/generation-z-is- https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/2022... missing-out-the-benefits-sex
- incomingpain 3y agoI'm in favor of kids not using porn, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything. I only changed 2 words for 1.
- ribosometronome 3y agoSocial media's existence is predicated on their algorithms being good at profiling you. Facebook's already got some level of ID verification for names, where they'll occasionally require people to submit IDs. No reason that similar couldn't be applied to age if society agreed it was worthwhile.
- dylan604 3y agoThere is a societal problem that is beyond just parenting. The peer pressure for kids to feel left out and ostracized because they are the only ones not on the socials is something a teen is going to definitely rebel against their parents on. It's part of being a teen. I'm guessing the other parents would even put pressure on the parents denying the social access. To me, the only way out of this is by changing one nightmare for another giving the gov't the decision of allowing/denying access. Human nature is not a simple thing to regulate since the desire for that regulating is part of human nature
- diputsmonro 3y agoIs talking to other people online really so bad that we need the government to step in and tell us who we can and can't talk to? How quickly will that power expand to what we can and can't talk about? I agree that neither solution is perfect, but exchanging an imperfect but undoubtedly free system of communication for one that is explicitly state-controlled censorship is an obvious step backwards. "Thinking about the children" should also involve thinking about what kind of a society you want to build for them. A cage is not the answer, especially not with fascism creeping back into our politics.
- dylan604 3y agoI think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online. I don't just mean Chester and his panel van. I'm talking about anyone that is attempting to manipulate that kid regardless of the motive, they are all predators. Social media has long since past just being a means of communicating with each other, and you come across as very disingenuous for putting this out there.
- diputsmonro 3y agoI think people are being incredibly disingenuous when they imagine that the government won't abuse this power to censor and harm marginalized communities. Many states are trying to remove LGBT books from school libraries for being "pornographic" right now, for example. All it takes is some fancy interpretations of "safety" and "social media" for it to become a full internet blackout, for fear of "the liberals" trying to "trans" their kids. I don't deny that kids can get into trouble and find shocking or dangerous things online. But kids can also get in trouble walking down the street. We should not close streets or require ID checks for walking down them. Parents should teach their kids how to be safe online, set up network blocks for particularly bad sites, and have some kind of oversight for what their kids are doing. Maybe these bills should mandate that sites have the ability to create "kid" accounts whose history can be checked and access to certain features can be managed by an associated "parent" account. Give parents better tools for keeping their kids safe, don't just give the government control over all internet traffic.
- aow83u45oaw23u 3y ago[flagged]
- reaperducer 3y agoI'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. People said the same thing about age restrictions for smoking, alcohol, movies, and on and on and on. It's not some unsolvable new problem just because it's the ad-tech industry.
- cjensen 3y agoYour comment begs the question of whether or not those age restrictions are a "solved problem." In the US, government age restrictions on movies DO NOT exist for the exact reason the government cannot impose age restrictions on social media: the First Amendment flatly forbids it.