4 ms·
In concept you're not necessarily wrong. But I think this is one of those "why can't people just <do something that's impossible for people who don't live the l
by Waterluvian 1y ago
In concept you're not necessarily wrong. But I think this is one of those "why can't people just <do something that's impossible for people who don't live the life you imagine everyone to live>?"
Back in the day, hordes of kids were just set loose on the city to find empty lots to fuck around in, because a lot of families are just scraping by and the whole concept of full-time supervision of children is laughably naive. Now they're on the TikToks and the Facestagrams, which has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
- jhanschoo 1y agoThis is something that I want to emphasize. While of course, all this discussion is centered around the present-day US context. It is not realistic to expect parents to curate their children's world, it is too much supervision to expect from two people, and historically not the case. Parents do have a domain in which they are able to supervise children, but beyond that, they rely on a tripartite social contract with their communities immediate (school, family friends, neighbors, etc.) and distal (Internet, government social programs, parenting/baby products, entertainment) to help provide a safe enough environment for their children to apprehend the world in even in times when supervision is not possible. In this case, Meta's product that is says are suitable for teens simply doesn't meet the expectations of safety that most parents expect and it's good that there is reporting on it to inform them.