6 ms·

I hope the U16 ban in Australia works and more countries adopt that approach.

yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
I do too, but I don’t think it’s enough. I’ve noticed over the years that so many people are experiencing this thing where their parents are adopting extreme ideas based on what they’ve picked up while scrolling through Facebook.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  We must first tune our own sense of truth and compassion to point our moral compass in the right direction. My parents have fallen victim to FoxNews' cult of dishonesty and fascism. I am at their service, but they don't want the truth, so they continue wondering in the darkness, not even caring to experience our extraordinarily delightful and accomplished children. As to our children, they have never had either a smartphone or unmonitored access to the internet. It's that simple. Through the twist of fate that is the pandemic combined with living in public housing, they were already home-schooled as they didn't need to be around other adolescents watching "Game of Thrones" or porn, or listening to Black Metal or the more ignorant kinds of Hip Hop (glorifying wealth, violence, objectification of women, and braggadocio). We are each the product of many different cultures, which we then combine into our own individual cultural worldview. Few people appear able to apersonally evaluate their cultural tendencies, so they are susceptible to influence from the dishonest, immoral and/or belligerent. They were raised with compassion and taught why we should be as compassionate as possible to every single person, and that makes them a delight for every single person they encounter. I have found that surrounding them by good people, ideas, attitudes, and behaviors was important to their development. Keeping them away from submorons who are both ignorant and overconfident is an important factor in the development of young adults. I know this deeply because -- while not myself belligerent -- I was a total dipshi_t as a teenager. I do not blame my parents for my idiocy, for they worked their asses off to provide for us. I blame our society for not facilitating our being able to have responsible adults around to educate myself and my peers. My first rule of parenting is to not let children raise children. When left to their own devices (PNI), they tend to gravitate to the worst ideas, and the younger kids will learn from their elders' abyssmal examples.
- paganel 2y ago
  That’s “extreme” only to their children, who most probably (the children, that is) hold very extreme beliefs themselves, such as smaller pensions and reduced State-supported assistance for the elderly. It is true, those (relatively younger) children think that they still hold the Gramcsian hegemony-like hold on what’s considered to be the “truth”, and hence the non-“extreme”, but that has stopped happening with the advent of social networks and the democratization of information (think of how happy everyone was about that democratization via social media when the Arab Spring started).
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    ??? Where did all this come from?
    - paganel 2y ago
      Don't you have friends in their 30s, even 40s, asking for the pensions to go down? And for the old people to die off soon enough because they're keeping all of us (younger people) down, with their (the old people's) voting habits being a very good example of that? Because I certainly do have those type of friends and acquaintances. Or maybe it's just an Eastern-European thing and further West there's no inter-generational war.
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        We don't really have pensions in the US (anymore). There is a meme of baby boomers cashing out of Social Security and leaving it unreplenished for future generations. I don't think "let's kill off the older people" is a common viewpoint but "the old people vote against our interests and I am waiting for them to die" is.
        paganel 2y ago
        Artificially keeping the stock exchange up (and inflated), no matter the consequences, is a form of State-sponsored pension, even though technically it is all private money. Somebody should write a study to show the correlation between the pension funds getting bigger and bigger and the number of companies getting in/out of the the S&P500 or Dow Jones getting lower and lower over time. That second number getting lower and lower means less innovation, means less real wealth going into the future, means less real money for people who are now in their 30s and 40s. I’d say that many of the NIMBY policies also respect that premise, i.e. government-supported decisions that help keep the wealth among the elderly by (artificially) keeping the existing home prices up (and it is known that those houses are some of the most important assets that said elderly people own).
aprilthird2021 2y ago
A cursory glance at the history of youths tells anyone that it won't
- fldskfjdslkfj 2y ago
  Are you sure about that? Seems to me the banning substances such as alcohol, drugs and cigarettes drastically reduced usage over time (for kids, adults is a different topic) And in this case you have a handful of companies that are responsible so it will be much easier to enforce vs trying to prevent every small shop from selling stuff illegally.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Kids did all these things in increasing amounts until social media and tech came around and made them isolated. If you take that time period out, there is no decrease from the start of the war on drugs till the first iPhone in youth use of drugs. Lastly, you forgot all these big companies started off as small, hard to regulate websites, which will be where kids flock to avoid 'teen accounts' and 'bans' and everything else
flyinglizard 2y ago
The future of our society is in a large part online, and I'd rather youth to grow up into those platforms with adequate tools to handle them than to just get in at 16. No matter what phenomena you look at, by the time a generation grows around a certain tech or condition as a given it just blends into everyday normal life. It happened with the TV, Internet, Instant Messaging, YouTube, Facebook and now TikTok. Happens as we speak with ChatGPT. I wouldn't ban it until 16 either, I'd teach kids about it from first grade.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  There's a difference between TV / Internet / Instant Messaging and YouTube / Facebook / TikTok / ChatGPT. The former are general concepts, while the latter are specific companies that are arguably damaging enough to be worth banning at the level of the whole society (except maybe in their home countries, which of course makes the situation harder to deal with).
- ohmy987 2y ago
  > The future of our society is in a large part online I wonder how accurate this is. I have no account in any social media except in LinkedIn (which I see more as a job portal than social media), and that's how I raise my kids. I live without facebook, instagram, twitter, or whatever else and I'd risk to say life is better without those.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    It is not accurate. This person is one of those extremes they talk about in the paper. "For instance, news stories that express outgroup animosity are 67% more likely to be shared on social media (Rathje et al., 2021). " They are holding an extreme view and posting it online.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    You’re on social media right now fwiw
    - 2y ago
richrichie 2y ago
Banning never works.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  Banning never works...perfectly. But I will take anything over what we have now. Point: We have banned murder, which obviously does not work perfectly.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Yes, indeed. Age restrictions definitely lessen the harms young people can easily get into.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    Murder was never legal or “allowed”. If you believe that people do not kill because it is illegal, you are on a shaky ground.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      you should ask yourself a different question - if we legalized murder would this cause uptick in murders or not…? :)
      - richrichie 2y ago
        It has more nuance. The supposition that there are significant number of murderers walking among us that would not murder because it is illegal has no basis. Crime statistics imply that most murders are results of either passion or pre-meditated/ well planned. These have nothing to do with legality of it. We have to have the law for an entirely different reason.
        bdangubic 2y ago
        Crime statistics are based on what is currently considered a “crime.” you are defeating your own argument… :) there is no nuance - if you made murder legal there would be A TON of murders, it is that simple (I personally might pop a cap in couple of people that have wronged people I love)

I do too, but I don’t think it’s enough. I’ve noticed over the years that so many people are experiencing this thing where their parents are adopting extreme ideas based on what they’ve picked up while scrolling through Facebook.

MrMcCall 2y ago
We must first tune our own sense of truth and compassion to point our moral compass in the right direction. My parents have fallen victim to FoxNews' cult of dishonesty and fascism. I am at their service, but they don't want the truth, so they continue wondering in the darkness, not even caring to experience our extraordinarily delightful and accomplished children. As to our children, they have never had either a smartphone or unmonitored access to the internet. It's that simple. Through the twist of fate that is the pandemic combined with living in public housing, they were already home-schooled as they didn't need to be around other adolescents watching "Game of Thrones" or porn, or listening to Black Metal or the more ignorant kinds of Hip Hop (glorifying wealth, violence, objectification of women, and braggadocio). We are each the product of many different cultures, which we then combine into our own individual cultural worldview. Few people appear able to apersonally evaluate their cultural tendencies, so they are susceptible to influence from the dishonest, immoral and/or belligerent. They were raised with compassion and taught why we should be as compassionate as possible to every single person, and that makes them a delight for every single person they encounter. I have found that surrounding them by good people, ideas, attitudes, and behaviors was important to their development. Keeping them away from submorons who are both ignorant and overconfident is an important factor in the development of young adults. I know this deeply because -- while not myself belligerent -- I was a total dipshi_t as a teenager. I do not blame my parents for my idiocy, for they worked their asses off to provide for us. I blame our society for not facilitating our being able to have responsible adults around to educate myself and my peers. My first rule of parenting is to not let children raise children. When left to their own devices (PNI), they tend to gravitate to the worst ideas, and the younger kids will learn from their elders' abyssmal examples.
paganel 2y ago
That’s “extreme” only to their children, who most probably (the children, that is) hold very extreme beliefs themselves, such as smaller pensions and reduced State-supported assistance for the elderly. It is true, those (relatively younger) children think that they still hold the Gramcsian hegemony-like hold on what’s considered to be the “truth”, and hence the non-“extreme”, but that has stopped happening with the advent of social networks and the democratization of information (think of how happy everyone was about that democratization via social media when the Arab Spring started).
- saagarjha 2y ago
  ??? Where did all this come from?
  - paganel 2y ago
    Don't you have friends in their 30s, even 40s, asking for the pensions to go down? And for the old people to die off soon enough because they're keeping all of us (younger people) down, with their (the old people's) voting habits being a very good example of that? Because I certainly do have those type of friends and acquaintances. Or maybe it's just an Eastern-European thing and further West there's no inter-generational war.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      We don't really have pensions in the US (anymore). There is a meme of baby boomers cashing out of Social Security and leaving it unreplenished for future generations. I don't think "let's kill off the older people" is a common viewpoint but "the old people vote against our interests and I am waiting for them to die" is.
      - paganel 2y ago
        Artificially keeping the stock exchange up (and inflated), no matter the consequences, is a form of State-sponsored pension, even though technically it is all private money. Somebody should write a study to show the correlation between the pension funds getting bigger and bigger and the number of companies getting in/out of the the S&P500 or Dow Jones getting lower and lower over time. That second number getting lower and lower means less innovation, means less real wealth going into the future, means less real money for people who are now in their 30s and 40s. I’d say that many of the NIMBY policies also respect that premise, i.e. government-supported decisions that help keep the wealth among the elderly by (artificially) keeping the existing home prices up (and it is known that those houses are some of the most important assets that said elderly people own).

aprilthird2021 2y ago

A cursory glance at the history of youths tells anyone that it won't

fldskfjdslkfj 2y ago
Are you sure about that? Seems to me the banning substances such as alcohol, drugs and cigarettes drastically reduced usage over time (for kids, adults is a different topic) And in this case you have a handful of companies that are responsible so it will be much easier to enforce vs trying to prevent every small shop from selling stuff illegally.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Kids did all these things in increasing amounts until social media and tech came around and made them isolated. If you take that time period out, there is no decrease from the start of the war on drugs till the first iPhone in youth use of drugs. Lastly, you forgot all these big companies started off as small, hard to regulate websites, which will be where kids flock to avoid 'teen accounts' and 'bans' and everything else

flyinglizard 2y ago

The future of our society is in a large part online, and I'd rather youth to grow up into those platforms with adequate tools to handle them than to just get in at 16. No matter what phenomena you look at, by the time a generation grows around a certain tech or condition as a given it just blends into everyday normal life. It happened with the TV, Internet, Instant Messaging, YouTube, Facebook and now TikTok. Happens as we speak with ChatGPT. I wouldn't ban it until 16 either, I'd teach kids about it from first grade.

BlueTemplar 2y ago
There's a difference between TV / Internet / Instant Messaging and YouTube / Facebook / TikTok / ChatGPT. The former are general concepts, while the latter are specific companies that are arguably damaging enough to be worth banning at the level of the whole society (except maybe in their home countries, which of course makes the situation harder to deal with).
ohmy987 2y ago
> The future of our society is in a large part online I wonder how accurate this is. I have no account in any social media except in LinkedIn (which I see more as a job portal than social media), and that's how I raise my kids. I live without facebook, instagram, twitter, or whatever else and I'd risk to say life is better without those.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  It is not accurate. This person is one of those extremes they talk about in the paper. "For instance, news stories that express outgroup animosity are 67% more likely to be shared on social media (Rathje et al., 2021). " They are holding an extreme view and posting it online.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  You’re on social media right now fwiw
  - 2y ago

richrichie 2y ago

Banning never works.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
Banning never works...perfectly. But I will take anything over what we have now. Point: We have banned murder, which obviously does not work perfectly.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Yes, indeed. Age restrictions definitely lessen the harms young people can easily get into.
- richrichie 2y ago
  Murder was never legal or “allowed”. If you believe that people do not kill because it is illegal, you are on a shaky ground.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    you should ask yourself a different question - if we legalized murder would this cause uptick in murders or not…? :)
    - richrichie 2y ago
      It has more nuance. The supposition that there are significant number of murderers walking among us that would not murder because it is illegal has no basis. Crime statistics imply that most murders are results of either passion or pre-meditated/ well planned. These have nothing to do with legality of it. We have to have the law for an entirely different reason.
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        Crime statistics are based on what is currently considered a “crime.” you are defeating your own argument… :) there is no nuance - if you made murder legal there would be A TON of murders, it is that simple (I personally might pop a cap in couple of people that have wronged people I love)