12 ms·

Rahm Emanuel says U.S. should follow Australia's youth social media ban

117 points by RickJWagner 11mo ago

OptionOfT 11mo ago
These platforms exist for one reason: data collection, used to sell ads. Once you realize their perverse nature where they walk the line of barely useful vs maximizing income, using the application starts to feel icky. But sadly that knowledge only comes with age and experience.
petcat 11mo ago
Does the Democratic party actually have a platform capable of beating the incumbent Trump Republicans? Or is it just this kind of stuff? Ban kids from YouTube?
- everdrive 11mo ago
  It's interesting, because quite a lot of the pornography ID laws are passed by Republicans and popular among Republicans. I don't mean this as a "both sides" sort of argument, but rather that modern tech seems to be unpopular among all constituents, even if different groups have their preferred villain.
  - VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
    I feel like those laws are different because they specifically target pornography, which is seen as an evangelical moral sin. They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s. Obviously the end result is the same, but I think the motivation is different.
    - everdrive 11mo ago
      >which is seen as an evangelical moral sin Maybe. Most of the debate that I hear feels similar to social media commentary -- teen boys getting their brains fried by constant access to stimulus. I don't hear anything about onanism or sinning. Mind you, I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but just that most of the arguments I hear are saying "we think this is an identifiable and secular harm."
    - watwut 11mo ago
      > They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s. They dont care about constitution. And they are in position to reinterpret it however they want to, regardless of its text and meaning.
      - VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
        If that was actually true then states would have banned or blocked already. This is not a new issue and it has been challenged unsuccessfully many times.
        watwut 11mo ago
        That was before conservatives stopped caring about pretending they care about constitution. They dont really care about porn now tho.
- mzajc 11mo ago
  > On March 12, 2025, Politico reported that Emanuel was interested in running for president in the 2028 U.S. presidential election. They are going to find out soon enough.
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  That would require making positive, pragmatic suggestions that could improve the lives of the average person, rather than moralizing and kowtowing to the special interest groups and wealthy donors who have captured the party. Good luck with that. As it is we now have two parties obsessed with “regulating” the morality of citizens while bleeding them out financially.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    No, it would require overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone. Democracy has been known since its invention to be extremely vulnerable to such actors. It's vulnerable to it because it's nearly impossible to counter. Your critique is valid to some degree, but Trump won simply because he had the shamelessness to lie over and over and over again that he'd bring prices down. That's it. No "positive, pragmatic suggestions" are electorally stronger than simple untruths stated with confidence ad infinitum.
    - iamnothere 11mo ago
      Good luck with that. This was the message of the consultant class in 2016 and 2024 and it’s why Dems lost both of those elections. Biden, for all his flaws, actually did attempt to articulate and focus on a positive message and actively reached out to struggling workers. And he won.
      - estearum 11mo ago
        The message of the consultant class is that demagogues can win by just lying to people? Which consultants said that? Biden won because he came hot on the heels of Trump's complete inability to actually govern. Which specific pragmatic, positive visions did Biden put forth that are so distinct from Harris's that they won in one case and lost in another?
        iamnothere 11mo ago
        No, the message was that winning was about “overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone,” plus shallow pandering to diversity, rather than delivering tangible benefits to Americans. In both 2016 and 2024 the Dem message to voters was that everything was fine, no radical economic change was needed, vote against orange man and all would be well. This was a losing position against a populist. Biden called on his long record of support for labor and proposed investing in American manufacturing, which was a winner in swing states especially since the economy was hurting due to the pandemic.
- energy123 11mo ago
  It's popular in Australia according to polling even though you'd never guess that based on sampling opinions about it from social media. Credibly fixing both social media and cost of living would be an effective platform across the West.
  - chii 11mo ago
    > It's popular in Australia according to polling depends on how or who you poll. I dont think it is popular. It's just that there's a lot of stigma when you try to argue against "saving the children" type policy - which is why this gets used to pass laws that otherwise would be difficult to pass if the true intentions were revealed. > Credibly fixing "credibly" is carrying a lot of weight here.
    - energy123 11mo ago
      The polls I've seen show banning social media for under 16s has 70-74% support in Australia and the UK, with about 20% opposed. What polls are you looking at?
- davidmurdoch 11mo ago
  Is this not a bipartisan issue?
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- phantasmish 11mo ago
  The pitch of the centrist/“3rd way” wing that’s still, incredibly, ascendant even after the massive party shift on the other side that was teed up in the late ‘00s and realized in 2016, is basically “we’re just like Reagan but we like the gays and abortion a little more, and like guns a lot less”. It’s a shit message, but they’re apparently permanently damaged by the 1980 landslide re-election loss to Reagan and incapable of moving on. IDK if liberal democracy will survive here long enough for us to see if another wing of the party can ever get those folks to let them try something else. [edit] not for nothing, Obama lightly hinted at a move away from that in his campaigning (if not his governing) and it seemed to work pretty damn well. Why they didn’t double down on that is anyone’s guess, but I’d suppose it rhymes with “bobbying”.
  - devilbunny 11mo ago
    1984, not 1980, FWIW, and the Democratic Party old guard had been pretty badly beaten up by the 1968 and 1972 conventions. Tip O'Neill was one of the last of that group to really hold power.
    - phantasmish 11mo ago
      1980 was the famous almost-every-state-is-red presidential election map that scared democrats shitless and convinced (enough of) them the way forward was shifting much closer to Reagan on many issues (including, notably, joining the Republican neoliberal movement). But yeah it took an election cycle or two to stabilize after that. [edit] I mean yes 1984's map was even worse, but 1980's was reeeeeal bad. Six states won in 1980, versus one in 1984. And we have a guy who won a pretty ordinary split of states and less than a majority of votes-cast calling his win in 2024 a "landslide", lol. No, Reagan's elections are what a landslide looks like. [edit edit] I mean I don't really want to quibble over the details, it probably was the one-two punch of those that really set the direction and we seem to agree on the basics that it was Reagan's crushing electoral success that set the tone for Democrats for up until... well, still today, largely.
- steviedotboston 11mo ago
  banning kids from youtube seems pretty reasonable
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  Unfortunately yes. Trump won during a time where incumbents lost by ~10 points. He narrowly beat a candidate that lost their only primary run by <2 point. Trump's very vocal minority is very good at making people think there is a silent majority. However, the democrats have been elected quite a lot this millennium and they've fully shown they're incapable of making necessary reforms so there's going to keep being populist candidates until there's new blue blood.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- spamizbad 11mo ago
  The good news is Emmanuel, although a media gadfly, isn't well liked by Democratic voters so he won't make it out of a Democratic primary.
everdrive 11mo ago
I don't see advertisements often, but I had to fly for work recently and of course saw advertisements in the airport. One of the ads was for "Teen Instagram" with "automatic protections." Kind of depressing. It's a bit like someone selling teen cigarettes, they're a bit more mild and you can graduate to "adult cigarettes" when you're ready. I'm not sure government banning is solution, but there's clearly no good done by the existence of social media. It's a strange problem, and ultimately the issue is that people just cannot regulate their behavior in this area.
- raddan 11mo ago
  > there's clearly no good done by the existence of social media. If this were true, I’m sure that you wouldn’t have any trouble advocating that we ban it. Many of us remember social media before the algorithmic feed took over, and it was a good way to stay connected to friends and family. Some us also were lucky enough to experience a protracted period of socializing on the internet in the pre-social media days: MUDs, web forums, chat rooms, etc. I enjoyed all of those, in my teen and college years, and like you I count myself fortunate that I was not exposed to social media during a formative time of my life. I think that’s why I hesitate to say that we should outright ban it: I know that the internet _can_ coexist (and even augment) a healthy social life. That said, I don’t use social media at all anymore (unless you count HN), so I’ve definitely voted with my eyeballs.
  - quesera 11mo ago
    Some critical differences, I think, are: - What we did on the Internet in the early 90s was not broadcast to our (real world) peers. If some big drama blew up online, we could escape it with the flip of a switch. - Similarly, we could escape real world drama by shifting to our online relationships. - Normal people were not online yet, so you didn't have all the normal real world structures of authority and popularity/hostility. Or, you had substitutes instead, because this is human nature, but they were not so universal and entrenched. It was an Internet of niches, and we could all find or create our own. - There was no pervasive profitability goal in keeping our eyeballs on a particular platform, so today's dark pattern manipulation just didn't exist. - It was separate. Not only did the Internet not bleed into real life (and v-v), but it wasn't always-available like today with smartphone ubiquity. The Internet, back then, was a safe third space. Today it's often a toxic hellscape, with some exceptional corners.
andsoitis 11mo ago
> And he suggested lawmakers should start with targeting three of the most popular apps among U.S. teens — TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. The linked Pew Research article also lists YouTube up there. Why not restrict its use by teens as well? It is because it also has wholesome material?
ninalanyon 11mo ago
Surely any other country should wait a while to see what the effects are. It's already being challenged in Australia on free speech grounds.
- tgv 11mo ago
  The effects are there for everyone to see. GenZ is depressed and can't hold a thought for more than a few seconds. No, it's not because of the housing or job market, it's the phones. Check e.g. Jonathan Haidt: https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ And free speech: you don't need a mobile phone or tiktok to exercise that right.
  - ninalanyon 11mo ago
    I was referring to the effects of the law.
MarkMarine 11mo ago
I lucked out in when I was born, I developed before social media existed and my college was a later addition to Facebook. I think it just doesn’t affect me in the same way… like someone who has never won a dollar gambling looks at a gambling addict. I’ve got tremendous empathy for the people that are addicted to it and I can’t imagine how corrosive it would have been to my teen years, so much as I revile the politics behind Rahm who believes nothing and will stick his finger in the wind every few minutes and go where it takes him, I’m glad this is the way the winds are blowing. Social Media should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes and drugs. All addictive, all tuned to hit dopamine centers, all bad for our health in different ways.
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  I think playing a ton of games as a kid has helped me. I walk through a casino and see all the flashing lights and sounds and like the casino screen is half as busy as an RTS. It's just not the same level of engagement; it's not overwhelming, it's just slow.
- nullbound 11mo ago
  I feel the same way. In a sense, our parents had it easier in terms of the damage external world could do emotionally, because there was typically a simple way to prevent most of it. Now, it is not nearly as simple. Not to search very far, our kid has a media diet that some consider strict ( 30 minutes a day of pre-selected items if kid meets some criteria, which I still consider too high ). But then some kids already have cellphones, ipads ( some completely unlocked too ! ). I only recently gave my kid lappy with gcompris installed ( locked down lappy; no net access ). Point I am trying to make in my rambly way is that each parent is hodge podge of various choices. And it does not work in aggregate. I get that it is all about balance, but it is hard to disagree with Rahm here. Top down ban is the only real way to go.
  - rozap 11mo ago
    > Point I am trying to make in my rambly way is that each parent is hodge podge of various choices. And it does not work in aggregate. On top of that, you have some of the biggest, most moneyed companies in the country spending billions of dollars to get kids and adults hooked. Even for parents with good intentions, it's not a fair fight. Maybe I'm going off the deep end, but I sometimes think people that work at Facebook should be considered social pariahs. The amount of damage that company has done to our country and society is truly incalculable. It's really hard for me to forgive anyone who had any part in it.
throwfaraway135 11mo ago
I don't believe this is done for the benefit of children/teens. What's much more likely is that politicians don't like people having news/information sources not beholden to them.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
xnx 11mo ago
I see social media ( x AI fakes) doing just as much or more harm to seniors.
- bamboozled 11mo ago
  Yes but they won’t let you take it away from them because they are hooked
  - broost3r 11mo ago
    they also vote
    - squigz 11mo ago
      I used to laugh about the idea of kid's voting rights. As I get older, I'm not so sure it's a bad idea. They're the ones who have to grow up in the world we're shaping. Maybe they should have a voice in how it's shaped. And if anyone wants an idea of why, here's a clip from one of the best shows of all time, The West Wing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A
- ksynwa 11mo ago
  Yes. My parents happily drench themselves in a neverending barrage of unhinged political commentary on YouTube and watch clips on Facebook without knowing they are AI generated. It is really horrifying.
- graemep 11mo ago
  Adults of all ages are being harmed.
alecco 11mo ago
(repost) - Let's limit children's use of social media and screens. - Great! Let's do it. - We need to identify who is 18+, so here's your digital ID for everything. And, from now on, if you ever criticize the government you will lose your bank account and your job. - WTF! - That "WTF" just cost you 100 social credits. UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and next USA. It's amazing how coordinated it is. They are using dog-whistles like CSAM, immigration, crime, and now children's wellbeing.
- jmathai 11mo ago
  I don't have the solution. But it seems like a problem which needs to be addressed and regulation isn't a crazy place to look. As a parent, it feels like I'm constantly battling with Meta, Tiktok and Google over my childrens' development and we have very different goals.
  - lapcat 11mo ago
    Why not just take away their phone?
    - phantasmish 11mo ago
      iPhones have excellent parental controls (by the abysmal standards of consumer software more broadly). You can just not allow insta and such, or set time limits on them per-day (30 minutes, say). I assume Android has something similar. You can set the Web to allowlist-only. Kids can send requests to bypass limits, sends the request right to your own Apple devices, easy to yay or nay it. It’s damn good. Phones are among the easiest devices to manage.
      - lapcat 11mo ago
        > iPhones have excellent parental controls If those work, sure, although kids tend to be pretty clever about getting around parental controls and are sometimes quite a bit more technically sophisticated than their parents.
zoeysmithe 11mo ago
Remember this guy was chased out of chicago for trying to cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald by the CPD. Then, previously was famous for being Clinton's fixer in the Gennifer Flowers case. The fact that this man has any political career at all is an incredible indictment of our system.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
  It's not clear to me that he has any political career beyond his home town.
sackfield 11mo ago
What are the metrics this Australian law should hit? How do we know its achieving its intended result?
- ninalanyon 11mo ago
  Almost no laws are enacted with this in mind. The people doing it are neither scientists nor engineers and never suffer any consequences for failure of what most people will see as well meaning lawmaking. The idea that a law should be subject to quality control is not merely absent but also anathema.
- lil-lugger 11mo ago
  They have a panel who are reviewing it’s effects across all aspects of teen life including sleep patterns, school grades ect and then nationally test results ect
  - sackfield 11mo ago
    Can you provide more information on this? I can't seem to find any.
    - lil-lugger 11mo ago
      “The regulator would need to assess whether platforms were taking reasonable steps. If they were not, it could take that platform to court to seek fines. There would be an independent evaluation of the ban conducted by an academic advisory group examining the short-term, medium-term and longer-term impacts of the ban. “It will look at the benefits over time, but also the unintended consequences,” Inman Grant said. A 14-year-old boy looking at social media on his mobile phone. Tech giants Meta and TikTok said on October 28 they will obey Australia's under-16 social media ban but warned the landmark laws could prove difficult to enforce. Australia will from December 10 force social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to remove users under the age of 16. (Photo by David GRAY / AFP) (Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images) How is Australia’s social media ban affecting you and your family? Read more “Everything from are they sleeping? Are they interacting or are they actually getting out on the sports fields? Are they reading books? Are they taking less medication like antidepressants? Are their Naplan scores improving over time?” Inman Grant said.” From The Guardian’s reporting
delichon 11mo ago
On the question of whether to legislate the ban, I'm a no. On the question of whether parents should implement it, I'm a yes. My niece and her husband have a one year old that is allowed zero screen time. They are willing and able to forego the high tech baby sitting, and are talking about continuing until at least the pre-teens. I think that if they could go even further, say live for the next decade with the Amish, it would be even better. If a kid was raised with his family in a dome where no technology later than 1900 were permitted (perhaps with an emergency medicine exception) and the kid wasn't released into the world until 13, I think on average they'd be mentally healthier and have a happier life.
- hefnstjetkegm 11mo ago
  That is extremely short-sighted to assume that because a few anecdotes on “how to parent” will fix the problem. I recommend you go out in public and observe the reality in various states and in various demographics and you’ll quickly see that the parents are just as addicted as the kids. They won’t know how to parent this away without legislation. Just go into the classroom and witness children and their six-seveeen. This is 100% like smoking except worse, because entire population of children are being deprived of their attention span. They just learn how to peddle useless products onto their peers without brain development to understand the consequence.
  - delichon 11mo ago
    I feel the same way about a smoking. I'm opposed to both smoking and a ban on smoking. It's not because I don't think an effective ban would be healthful, but because I believe that the concentrated power needed for it is a greater danger. It's the same argument that I believe supports the first amendment: people saying evil shitty false things is a lesser evil than the power needed to stop them from saying them.
    - hefnstjetkegm 11mo ago
      And suppose no one banned smoking, and smoking was still allowed on airplanes and most restaurants had smoking sections would we be better off? I’m sure all the people who died of throat cancer would tell you otherwise.
flpm 11mo ago
Social media is not the same product as social networks. It had value when you were in control of what content you wanted to see (your friends' posts). Now social media, controlled by algorithms, is just like a permanent informercial. You have direct ads and first level indirect adds (sponsored content), but it goes deeper than that, when they manage set up a "viral trend" you have a lot of people acting as speaker person for brands without even realizing. Attention shapes who you will become in the future, because it focus on what matters to you. When you outsource that to others, they can mold you into what is more profitable to them. Specially kids, who are at the prime time for being influenced.
- daveguy 11mo ago
  This is a good point. I completely relate to the statement that "social media is a plague on society." But you have a good point -- it's not so much the digitization of a social network as the algorithms that are hyper-optimized to steal attention and sell advertising. Maybe it's not the age that should be regulated, but the algorithm. Whether algorithm regulation should be age dependent is another question. Personally I don't think it should be age dependent. Or... Dear Social Media Companies, F your attention hijacking, skinnerbox advertising and engagement crack regardless of how old your victim is.
- ergocoder 11mo ago
  Then, people would complain it was an echo chamber because you only followed people who were aligned with you...
  - flpm 11mo ago
    But it's not clear to me that the echo bubbles are not still there. I think the more important aspect is control. Who is making the decision is more important than echo bubbles are bad.
HumblyTossed 11mo ago
We should ban voting aged people from using them.
multiplegeorges 11mo ago
Social media is the smoking of our age, and it will come to be seen the same way we see smoking now. Just like the tobacco companies, social media companies have known about the ills of their platforms for a long time and actively hidden it and/or publicly downplayed it.
- riskable 11mo ago
  No: It's more like leaded gasoline. People of the future will be like, "why would you let a big corporation control the feed algorithm?" Social media is fine. It's the algorithm that seeks addiction/engagement that's the problem. Not social media in general. "Social media" is far too ambiguous anyway. For example, under most definitions, Steam is a social media platform. Yet no one is addicted to sharing things via Steam. But you can! You absolutely can share and browse people's posts, screenshots, videos, and even chat (text and voice)! The reason why no one complains about Steam's social media features is that they're not designed to be addicting. That's not the point of the platform (it's to sell more games).
  - russelg 11mo ago
    And that's exactly why Steam was not included in the Australian bans.
sajithdilshan 11mo ago
This is the exact policing we don't want government to do regardless of the age. In my opinion it's the responsibility of the parents to decide how to raise their children and teach them how to live and adapt in the age of social media and maintain a balance. In the same sense one could argue that social media like Facebook or WhatsApp should be banned among older population because that's one of the major ways mis/fake information being spread among elderly people and now with AI videos they actually believe those fake stories to be 100% true as well. I think that's more risk to modern day democracy and well being of the society in general.
- insane_dreamer 11mo ago
  Stores are banned from selling cigarettes to those under 18. Sure, kids can still get them, but it does present a barrier. I don't see this as being any different, and as a parent, I'd support a ban like that.
  - stronglikedan 11mo ago
    Cigarettes (nicotine products) are easy to identify. What is social media? Why would I want to acquire and provide an ID just to comment on HN? In the case of social media, there is not a well enough defined product to ban.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hananova 11mo ago
      Big tech has had decades to self-police, and I don’t believe for a second they didn’t know that at some point they would be forced to if they didn’t do so. This is just the adults in the room drawing the line.
  - sajithdilshan 11mo ago
    That's the whole point then right? It's whole another policing and maintenance burden created to be funded by tax payers money without actually achieving anything useful at all.
chollida1 11mo ago
Makes sense. Our kids didn't get social media until they were 16 and life continued. We don't let kids drive until 16 and smoke or drink until 18. This just seems down right reasonable. What is the case for allowing them to have it before 16?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 11mo ago
  The question is how the laws are enforced. The driving, smoking, and drinking laws are enforced outside the home. Everyone has to prove their age at the DMV to get a license and at commercial establishments to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The only way to enforce the social media law age minimum is to force everyone to show their ID just to use the internet, even from their own home. That seems more Orwellian to me.
hiddencost 11mo ago
I can't believe we're still talking about him. All he's done is fail.
jmclnx 11mo ago
Almost impossible to do, but I agree and have been saying that for decades. Until recently I agreed with the age of 16, now I am starting to think they should be banned until they get an High School Diploma or equivalent, if no "diploma", then at the age of 21, they are allowed. Same as Drinking Age in the US. The diploma requirement might decrease the dropout rate the the US.
jswelker 11mo ago
Ban social media and go a step further and ban mobile devices for children while we're at it. The generation of iPad babies is completely broken. I kept my kids away from that stuff religiously, but now these brain addled goblins are their peers.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
tlogan 11mo ago
So let me this straight. I will need an ID to go on internet but not to vote. He even talked about how requiring ID makes thar certain people are trapped in vicious cycle. This is the exact policing we don't want government to do - but it is to protect children. So I guess we will go with it.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  Yes. The stakes of getting it wrong are different. Social media ≠ voting.
josefritzishere 11mo ago
Culturally, this is the pivotal question of our generation. Both options are admittedly terrible, and as appealing as the parental rights argument may be... it hasn't been going well.
game_the0ry 11mo ago
That's def and "ok, boomer" mentality. Apparently, Rahm has never heard of a "VPN." Jokes aside, this should be the responsibility of parents, not the government. Also, this is about censorship, not protecting kids.
tsoukase 11mo ago
- 1990s, blogs, months long - 2000s, facebook, weeks long - 2010s, twitter, days long - 2020s, tiktok, minutes long - 2030s, ???, seconds long and our attention span, intelligence and socialising are compromised.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
feb012025 11mo ago
Coming from Rahm Emanuel of all people, I don't get the sense that this is just a good faith effort to help kids at school
songodongo 11mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
mrobot 11mo ago
I Have Also Written Via Snail’s Courier To Make America Healthy Again That We USA Enact A Similar Ban But Also That We Should Start With The Adults Since The Children Seem More Mature Capable And Really Just Generally Cooler In On And Even Under The Internet
euroderf 11mo ago
Can't someone cook up a scheme where households with children need age verification for everyone, and households without children do not ? OK, tear this idea apart...
mikewarot 11mo ago
I will never forgive Rahm and his sacrifice of socialized medicine on the offering pyre of the insurance companies. Nothing he wants is to be considered a good idea by default. He typifies everything wrong with the DNC.
- giraffe_lady 11mo ago
  He was also directly involved in the chicago police department's attempted coverup of the murder of laquan mcdonald. He is completely despicable, the idea that anyone is covering his policy ideas is fucking vile. He should be begging for prison.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  Don’t worry, we have Abundance now
olelele 11mo ago
Literal fascists in the streets in US right now racial profiling people left and right hiding behind a badge. HN: OH MY GOD SOCIAL MEDIA BANS ARE GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!!
- pb7 11mo ago
  Correct. Deporting illegal aliens is exactly the job of the federal government.
  - nielsbot 11mo ago
    Clever snark! We should think about the consequences to everyone’s lives of having thugs cosplaying as soldiers running around disappearing innocent people off the streets because they’re brown.
    - pb7 11mo ago
      They're literally federal law enforcement officers, not thugs. And they're not "disappearing" people because they're brown, they're deporting them to their homeland because they no one gave them permission to be in our country. I'm sure you're used to this alarmist dramatic language working in your circles but it won't here. We should think about the consequences of letting in tens of million of illegals instead.
      - nielsbot 11mo ago
        Thugs is as thugs does. They're detaining citizens: - https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_ICE-Report-revised-FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_IC... - https://www.visaverge.com/news/congressional-probe-finds-agents-detain-and-mistreat-citizens/ https://www.visaverge.com/news/congressional-probe-finds-age... They're doing it because they're brown: - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/racial-profiling-by-ice-will-have-a-marked-impact-on-latino-communities/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/racial-profiling-by-ice-w... They're deporting them third countries: https://www.cfr.org/article/what-are-third-country-deportations-and-why-trump-using-them https://www.cfr.org/article/what-are-third-country-deportati... > We should think about the consequences of letting in tens of million of illegals instead. What are the consequences exactly?
ls612 11mo ago
It is unlikely that ID requirements for the internet would pass constitutional muster in the US. SCOTUS looks poorly on anything resembling a speech licensing regime.
jajuuka 11mo ago
These policies are so shortsighted. What about youth who are disabled? Socializing online can a huge benefit for them and allow them to connect with other people who they might never meet. What about LGBT youth who live in oppressive environments? Having a community that accepts them boosts their own self worth and reduces the risks of harm. What about any marginalized youth? They may be in a situation where they are one of the only people like them in the are and the internet allows them to find other people like them and give them peace about their own identity. This push for age verification is just a thinly veiled attempt to unmask everyone on the internet to open them up to harm and prevent connections from being made.
kevin061 11mo ago
This will never ever happen in the US because free speech is obviously more important than children's mental health. Allowing 14 YOs onto the Internet is but a mere side effect of the Constitution. Yes, I am being sarcastic.
mock-possum 11mo ago
When I was a youth I could get anything I wanted on the internet, even/especially things I wasn’t supposed to have. I have no faith whatsoever that this ban would be effective, and further, evoking the perennial kiddy porn panic makes me extra suspicious of what the ‘real’ goal might be. You don’t tend to wring your hands and wail “won’t somebody please think of the children” unless you know you can’t make your case without the emotional appeal.

117 points by RickJWagner 11mo ago

These platforms exist for one reason: data collection, used to sell ads. Once you realize their perverse nature where they walk the line of barely useful vs maximizing income, using the application starts to feel icky. But sadly that knowledge only comes with age and experience.

petcat 11mo ago

Does the Democratic party actually have a platform capable of beating the incumbent Trump Republicans? Or is it just this kind of stuff? Ban kids from YouTube?

everdrive 11mo ago
It's interesting, because quite a lot of the pornography ID laws are passed by Republicans and popular among Republicans. I don't mean this as a "both sides" sort of argument, but rather that modern tech seems to be unpopular among all constituents, even if different groups have their preferred villain.
- VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
  I feel like those laws are different because they specifically target pornography, which is seen as an evangelical moral sin. They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s. Obviously the end result is the same, but I think the motivation is different.
  - everdrive 11mo ago
    >which is seen as an evangelical moral sin Maybe. Most of the debate that I hear feels similar to social media commentary -- teen boys getting their brains fried by constant access to stimulus. I don't hear anything about onanism or sinning. Mind you, I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but just that most of the arguments I hear are saying "we think this is an identifiable and secular harm."
  - watwut 11mo ago
    > They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s. They dont care about constitution. And they are in position to reinterpret it however they want to, regardless of its text and meaning.
    - VWWHFSfQ 11mo ago
      If that was actually true then states would have banned or blocked already. This is not a new issue and it has been challenged unsuccessfully many times.
      - watwut 11mo ago
        That was before conservatives stopped caring about pretending they care about constitution. They dont really care about porn now tho.
mzajc 11mo ago
> On March 12, 2025, Politico reported that Emanuel was interested in running for president in the 2028 U.S. presidential election. They are going to find out soon enough.
iamnothere 11mo ago
That would require making positive, pragmatic suggestions that could improve the lives of the average person, rather than moralizing and kowtowing to the special interest groups and wealthy donors who have captured the party. Good luck with that. As it is we now have two parties obsessed with “regulating” the morality of citizens while bleeding them out financially.
- estearum 11mo ago
  No, it would require overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone. Democracy has been known since its invention to be extremely vulnerable to such actors. It's vulnerable to it because it's nearly impossible to counter. Your critique is valid to some degree, but Trump won simply because he had the shamelessness to lie over and over and over again that he'd bring prices down. That's it. No "positive, pragmatic suggestions" are electorally stronger than simple untruths stated with confidence ad infinitum.
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    Good luck with that. This was the message of the consultant class in 2016 and 2024 and it’s why Dems lost both of those elections. Biden, for all his flaws, actually did attempt to articulate and focus on a positive message and actively reached out to struggling workers. And he won.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      The message of the consultant class is that demagogues can win by just lying to people? Which consultants said that? Biden won because he came hot on the heels of Trump's complete inability to actually govern. Which specific pragmatic, positive visions did Biden put forth that are so distinct from Harris's that they won in one case and lost in another?
      - iamnothere 11mo ago
        No, the message was that winning was about “overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone,” plus shallow pandering to diversity, rather than delivering tangible benefits to Americans. In both 2016 and 2024 the Dem message to voters was that everything was fine, no radical economic change was needed, vote against orange man and all would be well. This was a losing position against a populist. Biden called on his long record of support for labor and proposed investing in American manufacturing, which was a winner in swing states especially since the economy was hurting due to the pandemic.
energy123 11mo ago
It's popular in Australia according to polling even though you'd never guess that based on sampling opinions about it from social media. Credibly fixing both social media and cost of living would be an effective platform across the West.
- chii 11mo ago
  > It's popular in Australia according to polling depends on how or who you poll. I dont think it is popular. It's just that there's a lot of stigma when you try to argue against "saving the children" type policy - which is why this gets used to pass laws that otherwise would be difficult to pass if the true intentions were revealed. > Credibly fixing "credibly" is carrying a lot of weight here.
  - energy123 11mo ago
    The polls I've seen show banning social media for under 16s has 70-74% support in Australia and the UK, with about 20% opposed. What polls are you looking at?
davidmurdoch 11mo ago
Is this not a bipartisan issue?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
phantasmish 11mo ago
The pitch of the centrist/“3rd way” wing that’s still, incredibly, ascendant even after the massive party shift on the other side that was teed up in the late ‘00s and realized in 2016, is basically “we’re just like Reagan but we like the gays and abortion a little more, and like guns a lot less”. It’s a shit message, but they’re apparently permanently damaged by the 1980 landslide re-election loss to Reagan and incapable of moving on. IDK if liberal democracy will survive here long enough for us to see if another wing of the party can ever get those folks to let them try something else. [edit] not for nothing, Obama lightly hinted at a move away from that in his campaigning (if not his governing) and it seemed to work pretty damn well. Why they didn’t double down on that is anyone’s guess, but I’d suppose it rhymes with “bobbying”.
- devilbunny 11mo ago
  1984, not 1980, FWIW, and the Democratic Party old guard had been pretty badly beaten up by the 1968 and 1972 conventions. Tip O'Neill was one of the last of that group to really hold power.
  - phantasmish 11mo ago
    1980 was the famous almost-every-state-is-red presidential election map that scared democrats shitless and convinced (enough of) them the way forward was shifting much closer to Reagan on many issues (including, notably, joining the Republican neoliberal movement). But yeah it took an election cycle or two to stabilize after that. [edit] I mean yes 1984's map was even worse, but 1980's was reeeeeal bad. Six states won in 1980, versus one in 1984. And we have a guy who won a pretty ordinary split of states and less than a majority of votes-cast calling his win in 2024 a "landslide", lol. No, Reagan's elections are what a landslide looks like. [edit edit] I mean I don't really want to quibble over the details, it probably was the one-two punch of those that really set the direction and we seem to agree on the basics that it was Reagan's crushing electoral success that set the tone for Democrats for up until... well, still today, largely.
steviedotboston 11mo ago
banning kids from youtube seems pretty reasonable
lesuorac 11mo ago
Unfortunately yes. Trump won during a time where incumbents lost by ~10 points. He narrowly beat a candidate that lost their only primary run by <2 point. Trump's very vocal minority is very good at making people think there is a silent majority. However, the democrats have been elected quite a lot this millennium and they've fully shown they're incapable of making necessary reforms so there's going to keep being populist candidates until there's new blue blood.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
spamizbad 11mo ago
The good news is Emmanuel, although a media gadfly, isn't well liked by Democratic voters so he won't make it out of a Democratic primary.

everdrive 11mo ago

I don't see advertisements often, but I had to fly for work recently and of course saw advertisements in the airport. One of the ads was for "Teen Instagram" with "automatic protections." Kind of depressing. It's a bit like someone selling teen cigarettes, they're a bit more mild and you can graduate to "adult cigarettes" when you're ready. I'm not sure government banning is solution, but there's clearly no good done by the existence of social media. It's a strange problem, and ultimately the issue is that people just cannot regulate their behavior in this area.

raddan 11mo ago
> there's clearly no good done by the existence of social media. If this were true, I’m sure that you wouldn’t have any trouble advocating that we ban it. Many of us remember social media before the algorithmic feed took over, and it was a good way to stay connected to friends and family. Some us also were lucky enough to experience a protracted period of socializing on the internet in the pre-social media days: MUDs, web forums, chat rooms, etc. I enjoyed all of those, in my teen and college years, and like you I count myself fortunate that I was not exposed to social media during a formative time of my life. I think that’s why I hesitate to say that we should outright ban it: I know that the internet _can_ coexist (and even augment) a healthy social life. That said, I don’t use social media at all anymore (unless you count HN), so I’ve definitely voted with my eyeballs.
- quesera 11mo ago
  Some critical differences, I think, are: - What we did on the Internet in the early 90s was not broadcast to our (real world) peers. If some big drama blew up online, we could escape it with the flip of a switch. - Similarly, we could escape real world drama by shifting to our online relationships. - Normal people were not online yet, so you didn't have all the normal real world structures of authority and popularity/hostility. Or, you had substitutes instead, because this is human nature, but they were not so universal and entrenched. It was an Internet of niches, and we could all find or create our own. - There was no pervasive profitability goal in keeping our eyeballs on a particular platform, so today's dark pattern manipulation just didn't exist. - It was separate. Not only did the Internet not bleed into real life (and v-v), but it wasn't always-available like today with smartphone ubiquity. The Internet, back then, was a safe third space. Today it's often a toxic hellscape, with some exceptional corners.

andsoitis 11mo ago

> And he suggested lawmakers should start with targeting three of the most popular apps among U.S. teens — TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. The linked Pew Research article also lists YouTube up there. Why not restrict its use by teens as well? It is because it also has wholesome material?

ninalanyon 11mo ago

Surely any other country should wait a while to see what the effects are. It's already being challenged in Australia on free speech grounds.

tgv 11mo ago
The effects are there for everyone to see. GenZ is depressed and can't hold a thought for more than a few seconds. No, it's not because of the housing or job market, it's the phones. Check e.g. Jonathan Haidt: https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ And free speech: you don't need a mobile phone or tiktok to exercise that right.
- ninalanyon 11mo ago
  I was referring to the effects of the law.

MarkMarine 11mo ago

I lucked out in when I was born, I developed before social media existed and my college was a later addition to Facebook. I think it just doesn’t affect me in the same way… like someone who has never won a dollar gambling looks at a gambling addict. I’ve got tremendous empathy for the people that are addicted to it and I can’t imagine how corrosive it would have been to my teen years, so much as I revile the politics behind Rahm who believes nothing and will stick his finger in the wind every few minutes and go where it takes him, I’m glad this is the way the winds are blowing. Social Media should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes and drugs. All addictive, all tuned to hit dopamine centers, all bad for our health in different ways.

lesuorac 11mo ago
I think playing a ton of games as a kid has helped me. I walk through a casino and see all the flashing lights and sounds and like the casino screen is half as busy as an RTS. It's just not the same level of engagement; it's not overwhelming, it's just slow.
nullbound 11mo ago
I feel the same way. In a sense, our parents had it easier in terms of the damage external world could do emotionally, because there was typically a simple way to prevent most of it. Now, it is not nearly as simple. Not to search very far, our kid has a media diet that some consider strict ( 30 minutes a day of pre-selected items if kid meets some criteria, which I still consider too high ). But then some kids already have cellphones, ipads ( some completely unlocked too ! ). I only recently gave my kid lappy with gcompris installed ( locked down lappy; no net access ). Point I am trying to make in my rambly way is that each parent is hodge podge of various choices. And it does not work in aggregate. I get that it is all about balance, but it is hard to disagree with Rahm here. Top down ban is the only real way to go.
- rozap 11mo ago
  > Point I am trying to make in my rambly way is that each parent is hodge podge of various choices. And it does not work in aggregate. On top of that, you have some of the biggest, most moneyed companies in the country spending billions of dollars to get kids and adults hooked. Even for parents with good intentions, it's not a fair fight. Maybe I'm going off the deep end, but I sometimes think people that work at Facebook should be considered social pariahs. The amount of damage that company has done to our country and society is truly incalculable. It's really hard for me to forgive anyone who had any part in it.

throwfaraway135 11mo ago

I don't believe this is done for the benefit of children/teens. What's much more likely is that politicians don't like people having news/information sources not beholden to them.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

xnx 11mo ago

I see social media ( x AI fakes) doing just as much or more harm to seniors.

bamboozled 11mo ago
Yes but they won’t let you take it away from them because they are hooked
- broost3r 11mo ago
  they also vote
  - squigz 11mo ago
    I used to laugh about the idea of kid's voting rights. As I get older, I'm not so sure it's a bad idea. They're the ones who have to grow up in the world we're shaping. Maybe they should have a voice in how it's shaped. And if anyone wants an idea of why, here's a clip from one of the best shows of all time, The West Wing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A
ksynwa 11mo ago
Yes. My parents happily drench themselves in a neverending barrage of unhinged political commentary on YouTube and watch clips on Facebook without knowing they are AI generated. It is really horrifying.
graemep 11mo ago
Adults of all ages are being harmed.

alecco 11mo ago

(repost) - Let's limit children's use of social media and screens. - Great! Let's do it. - We need to identify who is 18+, so here's your digital ID for everything. And, from now on, if you ever criticize the government you will lose your bank account and your job. - WTF! - That "WTF" just cost you 100 social credits. UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and next USA. It's amazing how coordinated it is. They are using dog-whistles like CSAM, immigration, crime, and now children's wellbeing.

jmathai 11mo ago
I don't have the solution. But it seems like a problem which needs to be addressed and regulation isn't a crazy place to look. As a parent, it feels like I'm constantly battling with Meta, Tiktok and Google over my childrens' development and we have very different goals.
- lapcat 11mo ago
  Why not just take away their phone?
  - phantasmish 11mo ago
    iPhones have excellent parental controls (by the abysmal standards of consumer software more broadly). You can just not allow insta and such, or set time limits on them per-day (30 minutes, say). I assume Android has something similar. You can set the Web to allowlist-only. Kids can send requests to bypass limits, sends the request right to your own Apple devices, easy to yay or nay it. It’s damn good. Phones are among the easiest devices to manage.
    - lapcat 11mo ago
      > iPhones have excellent parental controls If those work, sure, although kids tend to be pretty clever about getting around parental controls and are sometimes quite a bit more technically sophisticated than their parents.

zoeysmithe 11mo ago

Remember this guy was chased out of chicago for trying to cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald by the CPD. Then, previously was famous for being Clinton's fixer in the Gennifer Flowers case. The fact that this man has any political career at all is an incredible indictment of our system.

amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
It's not clear to me that he has any political career beyond his home town.

sackfield 11mo ago

What are the metrics this Australian law should hit? How do we know its achieving its intended result?

ninalanyon 11mo ago
Almost no laws are enacted with this in mind. The people doing it are neither scientists nor engineers and never suffer any consequences for failure of what most people will see as well meaning lawmaking. The idea that a law should be subject to quality control is not merely absent but also anathema.
lil-lugger 11mo ago
They have a panel who are reviewing it’s effects across all aspects of teen life including sleep patterns, school grades ect and then nationally test results ect
- sackfield 11mo ago
  Can you provide more information on this? I can't seem to find any.
  - lil-lugger 11mo ago
    “The regulator would need to assess whether platforms were taking reasonable steps. If they were not, it could take that platform to court to seek fines. There would be an independent evaluation of the ban conducted by an academic advisory group examining the short-term, medium-term and longer-term impacts of the ban. “It will look at the benefits over time, but also the unintended consequences,” Inman Grant said. A 14-year-old boy looking at social media on his mobile phone. Tech giants Meta and TikTok said on October 28 they will obey Australia's under-16 social media ban but warned the landmark laws could prove difficult to enforce. Australia will from December 10 force social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to remove users under the age of 16. (Photo by David GRAY / AFP) (Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images) How is Australia’s social media ban affecting you and your family? Read more “Everything from are they sleeping? Are they interacting or are they actually getting out on the sports fields? Are they reading books? Are they taking less medication like antidepressants? Are their Naplan scores improving over time?” Inman Grant said.” From The Guardian’s reporting

delichon 11mo ago

On the question of whether to legislate the ban, I'm a no. On the question of whether parents should implement it, I'm a yes. My niece and her husband have a one year old that is allowed zero screen time. They are willing and able to forego the high tech baby sitting, and are talking about continuing until at least the pre-teens. I think that if they could go even further, say live for the next decade with the Amish, it would be even better. If a kid was raised with his family in a dome where no technology later than 1900 were permitted (perhaps with an emergency medicine exception) and the kid wasn't released into the world until 13, I think on average they'd be mentally healthier and have a happier life.

hefnstjetkegm 11mo ago
That is extremely short-sighted to assume that because a few anecdotes on “how to parent” will fix the problem. I recommend you go out in public and observe the reality in various states and in various demographics and you’ll quickly see that the parents are just as addicted as the kids. They won’t know how to parent this away without legislation. Just go into the classroom and witness children and their six-seveeen. This is 100% like smoking except worse, because entire population of children are being deprived of their attention span. They just learn how to peddle useless products onto their peers without brain development to understand the consequence.
- delichon 11mo ago
  I feel the same way about a smoking. I'm opposed to both smoking and a ban on smoking. It's not because I don't think an effective ban would be healthful, but because I believe that the concentrated power needed for it is a greater danger. It's the same argument that I believe supports the first amendment: people saying evil shitty false things is a lesser evil than the power needed to stop them from saying them.
  - hefnstjetkegm 11mo ago
    And suppose no one banned smoking, and smoking was still allowed on airplanes and most restaurants had smoking sections would we be better off? I’m sure all the people who died of throat cancer would tell you otherwise.

flpm 11mo ago

Social media is not the same product as social networks. It had value when you were in control of what content you wanted to see (your friends' posts). Now social media, controlled by algorithms, is just like a permanent informercial. You have direct ads and first level indirect adds (sponsored content), but it goes deeper than that, when they manage set up a "viral trend" you have a lot of people acting as speaker person for brands without even realizing. Attention shapes who you will become in the future, because it focus on what matters to you. When you outsource that to others, they can mold you into what is more profitable to them. Specially kids, who are at the prime time for being influenced.

daveguy 11mo ago
This is a good point. I completely relate to the statement that "social media is a plague on society." But you have a good point -- it's not so much the digitization of a social network as the algorithms that are hyper-optimized to steal attention and sell advertising. Maybe it's not the age that should be regulated, but the algorithm. Whether algorithm regulation should be age dependent is another question. Personally I don't think it should be age dependent. Or... Dear Social Media Companies, F your attention hijacking, skinnerbox advertising and engagement crack regardless of how old your victim is.
ergocoder 11mo ago
Then, people would complain it was an echo chamber because you only followed people who were aligned with you...
- flpm 11mo ago
  But it's not clear to me that the echo bubbles are not still there. I think the more important aspect is control. Who is making the decision is more important than echo bubbles are bad.

HumblyTossed 11mo ago

We should ban voting aged people from using them.

multiplegeorges 11mo ago

Social media is the smoking of our age, and it will come to be seen the same way we see smoking now. Just like the tobacco companies, social media companies have known about the ills of their platforms for a long time and actively hidden it and/or publicly downplayed it.

riskable 11mo ago
No: It's more like leaded gasoline. People of the future will be like, "why would you let a big corporation control the feed algorithm?" Social media is fine. It's the algorithm that seeks addiction/engagement that's the problem. Not social media in general. "Social media" is far too ambiguous anyway. For example, under most definitions, Steam is a social media platform. Yet no one is addicted to sharing things via Steam. But you can! You absolutely can share and browse people's posts, screenshots, videos, and even chat (text and voice)! The reason why no one complains about Steam's social media features is that they're not designed to be addicting. That's not the point of the platform (it's to sell more games).
- russelg 11mo ago
  And that's exactly why Steam was not included in the Australian bans.

sajithdilshan 11mo ago

This is the exact policing we don't want government to do regardless of the age. In my opinion it's the responsibility of the parents to decide how to raise their children and teach them how to live and adapt in the age of social media and maintain a balance. In the same sense one could argue that social media like Facebook or WhatsApp should be banned among older population because that's one of the major ways mis/fake information being spread among elderly people and now with AI videos they actually believe those fake stories to be 100% true as well. I think that's more risk to modern day democracy and well being of the society in general.

insane_dreamer 11mo ago
Stores are banned from selling cigarettes to those under 18. Sure, kids can still get them, but it does present a barrier. I don't see this as being any different, and as a parent, I'd support a ban like that.
- stronglikedan 11mo ago
  Cigarettes (nicotine products) are easy to identify. What is social media? Why would I want to acquire and provide an ID just to comment on HN? In the case of social media, there is not a well enough defined product to ban.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hananova 11mo ago
    Big tech has had decades to self-police, and I don’t believe for a second they didn’t know that at some point they would be forced to if they didn’t do so. This is just the adults in the room drawing the line.
- sajithdilshan 11mo ago
  That's the whole point then right? It's whole another policing and maintenance burden created to be funded by tax payers money without actually achieving anything useful at all.

chollida1 11mo ago

Makes sense. Our kids didn't get social media until they were 16 and life continued. We don't let kids drive until 16 and smoke or drink until 18. This just seems down right reasonable. What is the case for allowing them to have it before 16?

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
lapcat 11mo ago
The question is how the laws are enforced. The driving, smoking, and drinking laws are enforced outside the home. Everyone has to prove their age at the DMV to get a license and at commercial establishments to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The only way to enforce the social media law age minimum is to force everyone to show their ID just to use the internet, even from their own home. That seems more Orwellian to me.

hiddencost 11mo ago

I can't believe we're still talking about him. All he's done is fail.

jmclnx 11mo ago

Almost impossible to do, but I agree and have been saying that for decades. Until recently I agreed with the age of 16, now I am starting to think they should be banned until they get an High School Diploma or equivalent, if no "diploma", then at the age of 21, they are allowed. Same as Drinking Age in the US. The diploma requirement might decrease the dropout rate the the US.

jswelker 11mo ago

Ban social media and go a step further and ban mobile devices for children while we're at it. The generation of iPad babies is completely broken. I kept my kids away from that stuff religiously, but now these brain addled goblins are their peers.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

tlogan 11mo ago

So let me this straight. I will need an ID to go on internet but not to vote. He even talked about how requiring ID makes thar certain people are trapped in vicious cycle. This is the exact policing we don't want government to do - but it is to protect children. So I guess we will go with it.

nielsbot 11mo ago
Yes. The stakes of getting it wrong are different. Social media ≠ voting.

josefritzishere 11mo ago

Culturally, this is the pivotal question of our generation. Both options are admittedly terrible, and as appealing as the parental rights argument may be... it hasn't been going well.

game_the0ry 11mo ago

That's def and "ok, boomer" mentality. Apparently, Rahm has never heard of a "VPN." Jokes aside, this should be the responsibility of parents, not the government. Also, this is about censorship, not protecting kids.

tsoukase 11mo ago

- 1990s, blogs, months long - 2000s, facebook, weeks long - 2010s, twitter, days long - 2020s, tiktok, minutes long - 2030s, ???, seconds long and our attention span, intelligence and socialising are compromised.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

feb012025 11mo ago

Coming from Rahm Emanuel of all people, I don't get the sense that this is just a good faith effort to help kids at school

songodongo 11mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

mrobot 11mo ago

I Have Also Written Via Snail’s Courier To Make America Healthy Again That We USA Enact A Similar Ban But Also That We Should Start With The Adults Since The Children Seem More Mature Capable And Really Just Generally Cooler In On And Even Under The Internet

euroderf 11mo ago

Can't someone cook up a scheme where households with children need age verification for everyone, and households without children do not ? OK, tear this idea apart...

mikewarot 11mo ago

I will never forgive Rahm and his sacrifice of socialized medicine on the offering pyre of the insurance companies. Nothing he wants is to be considered a good idea by default. He typifies everything wrong with the DNC.

giraffe_lady 11mo ago
He was also directly involved in the chicago police department's attempted coverup of the murder of laquan mcdonald. He is completely despicable, the idea that anyone is covering his policy ideas is fucking vile. He should be begging for prison.
nielsbot 11mo ago
Don’t worry, we have Abundance now

olelele 11mo ago

Literal fascists in the streets in US right now racial profiling people left and right hiding behind a badge. HN: OH MY GOD SOCIAL MEDIA BANS ARE GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!!

pb7 11mo ago
Correct. Deporting illegal aliens is exactly the job of the federal government.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  Clever snark! We should think about the consequences to everyone’s lives of having thugs cosplaying as soldiers running around disappearing innocent people off the streets because they’re brown.
  - pb7 11mo ago
    They're literally federal law enforcement officers, not thugs. And they're not "disappearing" people because they're brown, they're deporting them to their homeland because they no one gave them permission to be in our country. I'm sure you're used to this alarmist dramatic language working in your circles but it won't here. We should think about the consequences of letting in tens of million of illegals instead.
    - nielsbot 11mo ago
      Thugs is as thugs does. They're detaining citizens: - https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_ICE-Report-revised-FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_IC... - https://www.visaverge.com/news/congressional-probe-finds-agents-detain-and-mistreat-citizens/ https://www.visaverge.com/news/congressional-probe-finds-age... They're doing it because they're brown: - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/racial-profiling-by-ice-will-have-a-marked-impact-on-latino-communities/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/racial-profiling-by-ice-w... They're deporting them third countries: https://www.cfr.org/article/what-are-third-country-deportations-and-why-trump-using-them https://www.cfr.org/article/what-are-third-country-deportati... > We should think about the consequences of letting in tens of million of illegals instead. What are the consequences exactly?

ls612 11mo ago

It is unlikely that ID requirements for the internet would pass constitutional muster in the US. SCOTUS looks poorly on anything resembling a speech licensing regime.

jajuuka 11mo ago

These policies are so shortsighted. What about youth who are disabled? Socializing online can a huge benefit for them and allow them to connect with other people who they might never meet. What about LGBT youth who live in oppressive environments? Having a community that accepts them boosts their own self worth and reduces the risks of harm. What about any marginalized youth? They may be in a situation where they are one of the only people like them in the are and the internet allows them to find other people like them and give them peace about their own identity. This push for age verification is just a thinly veiled attempt to unmask everyone on the internet to open them up to harm and prevent connections from being made.

kevin061 11mo ago

This will never ever happen in the US because free speech is obviously more important than children's mental health. Allowing 14 YOs onto the Internet is but a mere side effect of the Constitution. Yes, I am being sarcastic.

mock-possum 11mo ago

When I was a youth I could get anything I wanted on the internet, even/especially things I wasn’t supposed to have. I have no faith whatsoever that this ban would be effective, and further, evoking the perennial kiddy porn panic makes me extra suspicious of what the ‘real’ goal might be. You don’t tend to wring your hands and wail “won’t somebody please think of the children” unless you know you can’t make your case without the emotional appeal.