3 ms·

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 the

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.

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
Nice opinion. Are you a parent? What if most voting age parents want this law?
- squigz 11mo ago
  Why does that mean people who don't want this law's privacy gets to be invaded? How is this not those parents' responsibility to ensure their child doesn't go on those sites they don't like?
- Larrikin 11mo ago
  Every single right you have can be taken away by the justification of it will protect children or it is wrong because of something some person wrote in a religious text. Parents who think they need this are bad parents and bad citizens. Someone pointed out that every single one of these laws in spirit does not need the website to verify and block the user. There is no need for complicated schemes of all websites implementing complex screening software and storing all our IDs. The website could report a single string saying if there is adult content and software the parent or authoritarian governments ISP has installed on the device could block it. But protecting children isn't the point
  - internetter 11mo ago
    Yup. We already have <meta name="rating" content="adult"> for this reason. Very conveniently ignored.
- sajithdilshan 11mo ago
  The fact of me being a parent is non of your concern I would say. If most of voting age parents want this, then what prevents them from enforcing it on their children. Why do they have to rely on government to be the parent. Maybe those parent should not have been parents in the first place if they need government to step in to raise their children.
- paganel 11mo ago
  They should be able to discipline their kids, if not, then it means that they're not capable parents and social services should be called on them.
xipix 11mo ago
We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law. It's how we stand together as a society, otherwise one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices. The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.
- sajithdilshan 11mo ago
  I disagree > one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized? > The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates. This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.
  - xipix 11mo ago
    "Can I learn to drive?" "No, you're not old enough" "But my friend is already driving and he's 12" "OK, when you turn 12 you can too."
    - wavemode 11mo ago
      I'm sorry but the parent in this conversation is just stupid. As they say, you can't fix stupid.
    - sajithdilshan 11mo ago
      The parent in your conversation is just stupid and no matter how many laws we pass we cannot fix stupidity. In that case only thing I can suggest is to pass a law to assess the eligibility and maturity of people if they want to have children and issue a permit if they are suitable to have and raise children and otherwise they cannot have children.
zetanor 11mo ago
In theory, libertarian-type approaches seem reasonable when you model for cooperative actors. In practice, however, you hit tragedies of the commons and severe first-mover disadvantages. Well-meaning parents who ban teenagers from social media at the level of the family rather than at the level of society will mainly just socially ostracize their kids. I'd imagine you'd need to go Amish-mode and build a social network on behalf of your kids for anything like this to work. If you want to restrict kids from social media (which is an open question), I would much prefer that the laws not gate kids from social media directly as this would require social media websites to ask for ID. Rather, abusive parents who don't lock their kids out of social media websites should be sanctioned. First offenders get all of their Internet accesses taken down for a few months.
- runako 11mo ago
  > will mainly just socially ostracize their kids Parent of a teen here. This is just flatly false. If you have been a teenager or adult before, you will be familiar with the concept of the clique. For teens, there are athletes, nerds, theater kids, Lululemon kids, etc. There are cliques of kids who do not use social media (because their parents won't let them, or they don't want to, or they prefer to do something else, or their parents do not use social media, or they cannot afford the devices). Teens who do not use social media sort into different cliques. That's it. They are not ostracized any more than theater kids or computer geeks are ostracized. (The latter inclusion was intentional, as it may cause some self-reflection among well-adjusted adults who at one time were members of school computer clubs.)
  - internetter 11mo ago
    Fairly recent teen here. This is simply not true. All my friends who started adamantly against social media had Instagram come end of senior year. At college, I could count on one hand the amount of people I met without it. I know personally, I was never entirely without social media, but I switched to iPhone because I was so tired of being ostracized with regard to iMessage (this was pre-RCS, perhaps this particular concern has been alleviated) Sure I guess all the Android users could band together and form a clique and maybe that happened to some extent, but I didn’t wish to associate as an Android user. I don’t imagine kids want “social media Luddite” to be their clique. I wanted to be an outdoorsy kid with tech interests at the most. My choice of phone brand isn’t a part of this identity.

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago

Nice opinion. Are you a parent? What if most voting age parents want this law?

squigz 11mo ago
Why does that mean people who don't want this law's privacy gets to be invaded? How is this not those parents' responsibility to ensure their child doesn't go on those sites they don't like?
Larrikin 11mo ago
Every single right you have can be taken away by the justification of it will protect children or it is wrong because of something some person wrote in a religious text. Parents who think they need this are bad parents and bad citizens. Someone pointed out that every single one of these laws in spirit does not need the website to verify and block the user. There is no need for complicated schemes of all websites implementing complex screening software and storing all our IDs. The website could report a single string saying if there is adult content and software the parent or authoritarian governments ISP has installed on the device could block it. But protecting children isn't the point
- internetter 11mo ago
  Yup. We already have <meta name="rating" content="adult"> for this reason. Very conveniently ignored.
sajithdilshan 11mo ago
The fact of me being a parent is non of your concern I would say. If most of voting age parents want this, then what prevents them from enforcing it on their children. Why do they have to rely on government to be the parent. Maybe those parent should not have been parents in the first place if they need government to step in to raise their children.
paganel 11mo ago
They should be able to discipline their kids, if not, then it means that they're not capable parents and social services should be called on them.

xipix 11mo ago

We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law. It's how we stand together as a society, otherwise one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices. The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.

sajithdilshan 11mo ago
I disagree > one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized? > The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates. This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.
- xipix 11mo ago
  "Can I learn to drive?" "No, you're not old enough" "But my friend is already driving and he's 12" "OK, when you turn 12 you can too."
  - wavemode 11mo ago
    I'm sorry but the parent in this conversation is just stupid. As they say, you can't fix stupid.
  - sajithdilshan 11mo ago
    The parent in your conversation is just stupid and no matter how many laws we pass we cannot fix stupidity. In that case only thing I can suggest is to pass a law to assess the eligibility and maturity of people if they want to have children and issue a permit if they are suitable to have and raise children and otherwise they cannot have children.

zetanor 11mo ago

In theory, libertarian-type approaches seem reasonable when you model for cooperative actors. In practice, however, you hit tragedies of the commons and severe first-mover disadvantages. Well-meaning parents who ban teenagers from social media at the level of the family rather than at the level of society will mainly just socially ostracize their kids. I'd imagine you'd need to go Amish-mode and build a social network on behalf of your kids for anything like this to work. If you want to restrict kids from social media (which is an open question), I would much prefer that the laws not gate kids from social media directly as this would require social media websites to ask for ID. Rather, abusive parents who don't lock their kids out of social media websites should be sanctioned. First offenders get all of their Internet accesses taken down for a few months.

runako 11mo ago
> will mainly just socially ostracize their kids Parent of a teen here. This is just flatly false. If you have been a teenager or adult before, you will be familiar with the concept of the clique. For teens, there are athletes, nerds, theater kids, Lululemon kids, etc. There are cliques of kids who do not use social media (because their parents won't let them, or they don't want to, or they prefer to do something else, or their parents do not use social media, or they cannot afford the devices). Teens who do not use social media sort into different cliques. That's it. They are not ostracized any more than theater kids or computer geeks are ostracized. (The latter inclusion was intentional, as it may cause some self-reflection among well-adjusted adults who at one time were members of school computer clubs.)
- internetter 11mo ago
  Fairly recent teen here. This is simply not true. All my friends who started adamantly against social media had Instagram come end of senior year. At college, I could count on one hand the amount of people I met without it. I know personally, I was never entirely without social media, but I switched to iPhone because I was so tired of being ostracized with regard to iMessage (this was pre-RCS, perhaps this particular concern has been alleviated) Sure I guess all the Android users could band together and form a clique and maybe that happened to some extent, but I didn’t wish to associate as an Android user. I don’t imagine kids want “social media Luddite” to be their clique. I wanted to be an outdoorsy kid with tech interests at the most. My choice of phone brand isn’t a part of this identity.