5 ms·

No comment on the implementation, but I wonder if there's some value in just allowing parents to be able to point to this and say "No, little Fred, you're not a

by prawn 2y ago

No comment on the implementation, but I wonder if there's some value in just allowing parents to be able to point to this and say "No, little Fred, you're not allowed to have an Instagram account until you're 16. It's the actual rule."

alfiedotwtf 2y ago
I’m guessing you don’t have kids
- prawn 2y ago
  I have three kids. They have access to devices they use primarily for reading and language/music lessons. They don't use social media and would likely pay a decent level of attention if (in addition to us having explained concerns about social media for children) we indicated that there was government advice/ruling around this.
  - sekai 2y ago
    > we indicated that there was government advice/ruling around this. Why would any pre-teen / teen care about what government thinks? They care what their friends think about that TikTok they saw during recess, though.
technion 2y ago
I'm listening to Australian radio right now and a group of mothers just made this exact point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dools 2y ago
Yep, the "everyone else has BLAH" argument is a strong one. If we collectively take action through government to set a standard it is MUCH easier to shut down those self-fulfilling claims.
jolmg 2y ago
> allowing parents What? Why would parents need permission from their government to forbid their kid from having an Instagram account? They're parents, so they can engage in parenting.
- the5avage 2y ago
  Because not everyone has a computer science degree. They probably want to allow their kids to use a computer, so it would be very easy for the kid to go to instagram when they dont look.
- prawn 2y ago
  Allowing as in “enabling”, obviously.
- krisoft 2y ago
  Not allowing as in "giving them permission", but "allowing" as in enabling them to do so. Right now if a parent says "You can't have instagram. Because I say so." the kids answer will be "But I will be a looser noob if I can't. All my friend are on it. Jenny has 5k followers!" Vs after the ban: "You can't have instagram. This is the law." "But mom! Some of my friends are on it. Jenny has 1k followers!" "Is that so? I will ask Jenny's mom if she knows about that." It is not going to stop absolutely everything. (Same as prohibiting underage alcohol drinking is not stopping teens from drinking any). But it will put a serious damper on it and fracture the social networks into smaller more underground ones.
boffinAudio 2y ago
Seems to me that the better solution is to give parents the ability to observe their kids' activities, and for <16 accounts to be able to operate only when tied with an adult account, which can observe activity... Of course many will say this can be abused, but all technology can be abused and the reason we're in this mess in the first place is because OS designers haven't figured out that the relationship between parent and child is an important one which should be strengthened, not made weaker ..
antihero 2y ago
Ah yes, teenagers, people with famously little time on their hands and a penchant for following rules.

by prawn 2y ago

alfiedotwtf 2y ago

I’m guessing you don’t have kids

prawn 2y ago
I have three kids. They have access to devices they use primarily for reading and language/music lessons. They don't use social media and would likely pay a decent level of attention if (in addition to us having explained concerns about social media for children) we indicated that there was government advice/ruling around this.
- sekai 2y ago
  > we indicated that there was government advice/ruling around this. Why would any pre-teen / teen care about what government thinks? They care what their friends think about that TikTok they saw during recess, though.

technion 2y ago

I'm listening to Australian radio right now and a group of mothers just made this exact point.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dools 2y ago

Yep, the "everyone else has BLAH" argument is a strong one. If we collectively take action through government to set a standard it is MUCH easier to shut down those self-fulfilling claims.

jolmg 2y ago

> allowing parents What? Why would parents need permission from their government to forbid their kid from having an Instagram account? They're parents, so they can engage in parenting.

the5avage 2y ago
Because not everyone has a computer science degree. They probably want to allow their kids to use a computer, so it would be very easy for the kid to go to instagram when they dont look.
prawn 2y ago
Allowing as in “enabling”, obviously.
krisoft 2y ago
Not allowing as in "giving them permission", but "allowing" as in enabling them to do so. Right now if a parent says "You can't have instagram. Because I say so." the kids answer will be "But I will be a looser noob if I can't. All my friend are on it. Jenny has 5k followers!" Vs after the ban: "You can't have instagram. This is the law." "But mom! Some of my friends are on it. Jenny has 1k followers!" "Is that so? I will ask Jenny's mom if she knows about that." It is not going to stop absolutely everything. (Same as prohibiting underage alcohol drinking is not stopping teens from drinking any). But it will put a serious damper on it and fracture the social networks into smaller more underground ones.

boffinAudio 2y ago

Seems to me that the better solution is to give parents the ability to observe their kids' activities, and for <16 accounts to be able to operate only when tied with an adult account, which can observe activity... Of course many will say this can be abused, but all technology can be abused and the reason we're in this mess in the first place is because OS designers haven't figured out that the relationship between parent and child is an important one which should be strengthened, not made weaker ..

antihero 2y ago

Ah yes, teenagers, people with famously little time on their hands and a penchant for following rules.