4 ms·

Might be a cultural difference (im not from the US), but leaving a 10 year unsupervised with content from (potentially malicious) strangers really throws me off

Might be a cultural difference (im not from the US), but leaving a 10 year unsupervised with content from (potentially malicious) strangers really throws me off. Wouldn't this be the perfect precedence case on why minors should not be allowed on social media?

hyeonwho4 2y ago
I am also a little confused by this. I thought websites were not allowed to collect data from minors under 13 years of age, and that TikTok doesn't allow minors under 13 to create accounts. Why is TikTok not liable for personalizing content to minors? Apparently (from the court filings) TikTok even knew these videos were going viral among children... which should increase their liability under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
- ratorx 2y ago
  Assuming TikTok collect age, and the minimum possible age is 13 (ToS) and a parent lets their child access the app despite that, I don’t see how TikTok is liable. Also, I’m not sure how TikTok would know that the videos are viral among the protected demographic if the protected demographic cannot even put in the information to classify them as such? I don’t think requiring moderation is the answer in all cases. As an adult, I should be allowed to consume unmoderated content. Should people younger than 18 be allowed to? Maybe. I agree that below age X, all content should be moderated. If you choose not to do this for your platform, then age-restrict the content. However, historically age-restriction on the internet is an unsolved problem. I think what would be useful is tighter legislation on how this is enforced etc. This case is not a moderation question. It is a liability question, because a minor has been granted access to age-restricted content. I think the key question is whether TikTok should be liable for the child/their parents having bypassed the age restriction (too easily)? Maybe. I’m leaning towards the opinion that a large amount of this responsibility is on the parents. If this is onerous, then the law should legislate stricter guidelines on content targeting the protected demographic as well as the gates blocking them.
Yeul 2y ago
Look your kids are going to discover all kinds of nasty things online or offline so either you prepare them for it or it's going to be like that scene in Stephen King's Carrie.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- blueflow 2y ago
  At age 10?
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    Yes, unless you watch them literally every moment they're using the internet they're going to encounter something eventually.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
EasyMark 2y ago
You are correct. US parents often use social media as a baby sitter and don’t pay attention to what they are watching. No 10 year old should be on social media or even the internet in an unsupervised manner; they are simply too impressionable and trusting. It’s just negligence, my kids never got SM accounts before 15, after I’d had time to introduce them to some common sense and much needed skepticism of people and information on the internet.
- anticensor 2y ago
  Not just in America. I have been seeing such parents in my hometown every day.

hyeonwho4 2y ago

I am also a little confused by this. I thought websites were not allowed to collect data from minors under 13 years of age, and that TikTok doesn't allow minors under 13 to create accounts. Why is TikTok not liable for personalizing content to minors? Apparently (from the court filings) TikTok even knew these videos were going viral among children... which should increase their liability under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

ratorx 2y ago
Assuming TikTok collect age, and the minimum possible age is 13 (ToS) and a parent lets their child access the app despite that, I don’t see how TikTok is liable. Also, I’m not sure how TikTok would know that the videos are viral among the protected demographic if the protected demographic cannot even put in the information to classify them as such? I don’t think requiring moderation is the answer in all cases. As an adult, I should be allowed to consume unmoderated content. Should people younger than 18 be allowed to? Maybe. I agree that below age X, all content should be moderated. If you choose not to do this for your platform, then age-restrict the content. However, historically age-restriction on the internet is an unsolved problem. I think what would be useful is tighter legislation on how this is enforced etc. This case is not a moderation question. It is a liability question, because a minor has been granted access to age-restricted content. I think the key question is whether TikTok should be liable for the child/their parents having bypassed the age restriction (too easily)? Maybe. I’m leaning towards the opinion that a large amount of this responsibility is on the parents. If this is onerous, then the law should legislate stricter guidelines on content targeting the protected demographic as well as the gates blocking them.

Yeul 2y ago

Look your kids are going to discover all kinds of nasty things online or offline so either you prepare them for it or it's going to be like that scene in Stephen King's Carrie.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
blueflow 2y ago
At age 10?
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Yes, unless you watch them literally every moment they're using the internet they're going to encounter something eventually.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

EasyMark 2y ago

You are correct. US parents often use social media as a baby sitter and don’t pay attention to what they are watching. No 10 year old should be on social media or even the internet in an unsupervised manner; they are simply too impressionable and trusting. It’s just negligence, my kids never got SM accounts before 15, after I’d had time to introduce them to some common sense and much needed skepticism of people and information on the internet.

anticensor 2y ago
Not just in America. I have been seeing such parents in my hometown every day.