6 ms·

Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.

by tremon 3y ago

poorlyknit 3y ago
Would you mind expanding that? I always assumed that renting, lending or buying anything constitutes a contract technically.
- tremon 3y ago
  If you want to be really pedantic, everytime a minor makes a purchase in a convenience store, that's technically a fulfillment of a contract. We still consider this a normal interaction and we don't consider the purchase null and void because one of the parties was underage. I was thinking more about sports clubs, or things like the scouts or church groups. Sure, the payment side requires parental supervision but none of them operate under dracionan "accept our legalese or we won't let you play"-style rules. There's a lot of difference between "we have an implicit contract that's based around common values" and "we deny you access unless you agree to be exploited". I felt that the blanket statement "it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract with a minor anyway" was implying that therefore young people should have no agency. That's probably not what the GP meant, but I thought it needed stating explicitly that we do expect children/teenagers/adolescents to gradually take more control over their own life, and that we do expect society to allow for that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alectroem 3y ago
I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms. In which case we should ban children from using game consoles, computers, cell phones, ISPs, TVs, or anything that else that comes with a ToS/AUP/T&C
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Since when can children agree to legal contracts? don't you have to be 18 to get a cellphone plan or sign a contract with an ISP?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Yet children have cell phones and use the internet right? Nothing (as far as I know) will stop a child from walking into a walmart and buying a pre-paid phone or a TV or a computer but all of those things will force you agree to their terms. How enforceable all of that is legally would be up to the courts, but that's true for social media sites too. If a 15 year old signs up for a social media site they're forced to agree to terms that might not hold up in a courtroom. None of that protects the child from having their data harvested, sold, and used against them for the rest of their lives. If we agree to ban kids from using social media on the basis of them not being able to legally enter into a contract, we'll have to ban kids from a whole lot more that social media since so many things in our lives require one. Even things explicitly made for children.
      - idle_zealot 3y ago
        > but if we enforce the law, then companies will have to stop taking advantage of children! That sounds pretty good. Maybe companies targeting their products and services at children shouldn't attempt to enter illegal contracts with them?
        3y ago
spicykraken 3y ago
Children aren't allowed to play slot machines either and that's what TikTok (and Youtube Shorts, etc) sure feels like to me.
- wvenable 3y ago
  It might feel that way but what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV? Society has always restricted children's access to specific content but now we're restricting children's access to specific mediums regardless of the content itself. Why is TikTok or YouTube shorts not a valid way to consume media? It's a bit like arguing graphic novels are acceptable to children but short comics are not.
  - spicykraken 3y ago
    Graphic novels and short comics are a finite medium, they have a beginning and an end. There's not a very practical way to doom scroll away your entire weekend with comic books. You will eventually run out of comic books or run out of places to put them.
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    The difference is massive. Your weird neighbour who has a feet fetish would never get to be a TV star, but he can amass 50k followers on TikTok, and request feet pics via private messages to them. Including underage children. Now multiply that by ten thousand. TV, by nature of being a group effort and holding a sliver of a monopoly for your attention, had a natural content filter (based on societal standards, for bad and good).
    - wvenable 3y ago
      I don't watch foot fetishists but I watch a lot of content made by people who would never get on TV on subjects too niche to ever get on TV. Also, if you want learn how to do anything, you can find someone online that will show you how to do it.
    - ok_dad 3y ago

Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.

by tremon 3y ago

Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.

poorlyknit 3y ago

Would you mind expanding that? I always assumed that renting, lending or buying anything constitutes a contract technically.

tremon 3y ago
If you want to be really pedantic, everytime a minor makes a purchase in a convenience store, that's technically a fulfillment of a contract. We still consider this a normal interaction and we don't consider the purchase null and void because one of the parties was underage. I was thinking more about sports clubs, or things like the scouts or church groups. Sure, the payment side requires parental supervision but none of them operate under dracionan "accept our legalese or we won't let you play"-style rules. There's a lot of difference between "we have an implicit contract that's based around common values" and "we deny you access unless you agree to be exploited". I felt that the blanket statement "it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract with a minor anyway" was implying that therefore young people should have no agency. That's probably not what the GP meant, but I thought it needed stating explicitly that we do expect children/teenagers/adolescents to gradually take more control over their own life, and that we do expect society to allow for that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

alectroem 3y ago

I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.

autoexec 3y ago
> I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms. In which case we should ban children from using game consoles, computers, cell phones, ISPs, TVs, or anything that else that comes with a ToS/AUP/T&C
- fragmede 3y ago
  Since when can children agree to legal contracts? don't you have to be 18 to get a cellphone plan or sign a contract with an ISP?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Yet children have cell phones and use the internet right? Nothing (as far as I know) will stop a child from walking into a walmart and buying a pre-paid phone or a TV or a computer but all of those things will force you agree to their terms. How enforceable all of that is legally would be up to the courts, but that's true for social media sites too. If a 15 year old signs up for a social media site they're forced to agree to terms that might not hold up in a courtroom. None of that protects the child from having their data harvested, sold, and used against them for the rest of their lives. If we agree to ban kids from using social media on the basis of them not being able to legally enter into a contract, we'll have to ban kids from a whole lot more that social media since so many things in our lives require one. Even things explicitly made for children.
    - idle_zealot 3y ago
      > but if we enforce the law, then companies will have to stop taking advantage of children! That sounds pretty good. Maybe companies targeting their products and services at children shouldn't attempt to enter illegal contracts with them?
      - 3y ago

spicykraken 3y ago

Children aren't allowed to play slot machines either and that's what TikTok (and Youtube Shorts, etc) sure feels like to me.

wvenable 3y ago
It might feel that way but what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV? Society has always restricted children's access to specific content but now we're restricting children's access to specific mediums regardless of the content itself. Why is TikTok or YouTube shorts not a valid way to consume media? It's a bit like arguing graphic novels are acceptable to children but short comics are not.
- spicykraken 3y ago
  Graphic novels and short comics are a finite medium, they have a beginning and an end. There's not a very practical way to doom scroll away your entire weekend with comic books. You will eventually run out of comic books or run out of places to put them.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  The difference is massive. Your weird neighbour who has a feet fetish would never get to be a TV star, but he can amass 50k followers on TikTok, and request feet pics via private messages to them. Including underage children. Now multiply that by ten thousand. TV, by nature of being a group effort and holding a sliver of a monopoly for your attention, had a natural content filter (based on societal standards, for bad and good).
  - wvenable 3y ago
    I don't watch foot fetishists but I watch a lot of content made by people who would never get on TV on subjects too niche to ever get on TV. Also, if you want learn how to do anything, you can find someone online that will show you how to do it.
  - ok_dad 3y ago