5 ms·
Have any social media ban proposals tried to define rigorous criteria for which sites should be covered? I found this for the the Australian ban: "The legislat
by tveita 1y ago
Have any social media ban proposals tried to define rigorous criteria for which sites should be covered?
I found this for the the Australian ban: "The legislation does not specify which platforms will be banned. Those decisions will be made later by Australia’s communications minister, who will seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner - an internet regulator that will enforce the rules."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- theshrike79 1y agoPersonally I'd limit access to all platforms that have algorithmic feeds that provide content. If you need to specifically subscribe to a source (and parents can check your subscriptions via parental controls), it's fine. And absolutely no posting any content for public consumption, for contacts only. Example: - Algorithm provides endless content with zero educational value (Youtube Shorts) - not ok - Child needs to specifically subscribe to to a content creator (A Minecraft Youtuber, who isn't a shouty toxic merch pusher) - ok - Child posts pictures of her things to contacts (friends, relatives) - ok - Child posts content that can be viewed by anyone in the world - not ok
- M95D 1y ago> educational value > shouty toxic merch pusher > pictures of her things > to contacts (friends, relatives) Too vague. Much, much to vague. There's no way to define these items and they won't prevent bullying which is basically text. I would ban any child-to-child communication, including any text and any child-to-adult communication unless the adult is pre-approved by parents.