4 ms·

They tried this in australia, now more kids than ever are on social media.

by spacedoutman 5mo ago

greggoB 5mo ago
Source?
- miroljub 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mainmailman 5mo ago
    What?
  - greggoB 5mo ago
    Are you stating that as your source, or asking if that's my political affiliation?
    - miroljub 5mo ago
      No. Just a notice that above mentioned group frequently cry for source when they don't agree with an opinion. Opinion is personal, it's not a fact and doesn't need source.
      - greggoB 5mo ago
        "now more kids than ever are on social media." is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, which should be accompanied by a source, at least if you want to be taken seriously.
        miroljub 5mo ago
        It's his opinion based on observing his social group. Should be clear from context.
        greggoB 5mo ago
        Not sure how, but if the case it's not clear to me, at least.
john_strinlai 5mo ago
>now more kids than ever are on social media. press x to doubt i would need to see some data for that. no way the law had the effect of causing kids to sign up to social media who otherwise, before the law, didnt. at worst, i could maybe see the law having a 0% effectiveness (i.e. the same number of kids using social media before/after the law). but i think even that is a big stretch.
- mainmailman 5mo ago
  I could see a scenario where well meaning parents prevent kids from going online, and with the promise of a safer internet through ID laws allows their children to get online more. Total conjecture though, I would like to see data on that too.
- littlestymaar 5mo ago
  Yeah, there are arguments to be made about the benefits (less teenagers on social media) vs the drawbacks (having to hand your id card to some untrustworthy provider), or the fact that it makes people used to circumventing the law, or about the law addressing the wrong issue (so called “social media” being actively harmful by design in ways that ought to be banned) but claiming that the law increases social media consumption is ridiculous.
retired 5mo ago
The problem in Australia is that influencers and musicians are still allowed on social media regardless of age, as they have professionally managed accounts. So the result is that poor children in Australia don't have access to social media and that rich kids just hire an agency to represent them. The Australian government should fix that.

They tried this in australia, now more kids than ever are on social media.

greggoB 5mo ago

Source?

miroljub 5mo ago
[flagged]
- mainmailman 5mo ago
  What?
- greggoB 5mo ago
  Are you stating that as your source, or asking if that's my political affiliation?
  - miroljub 5mo ago
    No. Just a notice that above mentioned group frequently cry for source when they don't agree with an opinion. Opinion is personal, it's not a fact and doesn't need source.
    - greggoB 5mo ago
      "now more kids than ever are on social media." is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, which should be accompanied by a source, at least if you want to be taken seriously.
      - miroljub 5mo ago
        It's his opinion based on observing his social group. Should be clear from context.
        greggoB 5mo ago
        Not sure how, but if the case it's not clear to me, at least.

john_strinlai 5mo ago

>now more kids than ever are on social media. press x to doubt i would need to see some data for that. no way the law had the effect of causing kids to sign up to social media who otherwise, before the law, didnt. at worst, i could maybe see the law having a 0% effectiveness (i.e. the same number of kids using social media before/after the law). but i think even that is a big stretch.

mainmailman 5mo ago
I could see a scenario where well meaning parents prevent kids from going online, and with the promise of a safer internet through ID laws allows their children to get online more. Total conjecture though, I would like to see data on that too.
littlestymaar 5mo ago
Yeah, there are arguments to be made about the benefits (less teenagers on social media) vs the drawbacks (having to hand your id card to some untrustworthy provider), or the fact that it makes people used to circumventing the law, or about the law addressing the wrong issue (so called “social media” being actively harmful by design in ways that ought to be banned) but claiming that the law increases social media consumption is ridiculous.

retired 5mo ago

The problem in Australia is that influencers and musicians are still allowed on social media regardless of age, as they have professionally managed accounts. So the result is that poor children in Australia don't have access to social media and that rich kids just hire an agency to represent them. The Australian government should fix that.