- This does not restrict messaging platforms like iMessage, which are the first "social media" most kids really use, and on which they can be bullied, groomed, etc. Parents still need to involved.
- messaging platforms aren't social media anymore than a telephone is social media
- Wait till you hear about recess or the cafeteria
- We bring back Geocities and use the Net like it’s the mid 90s again. No social media required.
- I'm all for it. Social media contributes little value to society.
- As you wish. [1]
[1] - https://neocities.org/
- If this was actually about children the law would just enforce 18+ tagging on websites and parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions.
This isn't about children, and never was. Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists.
- > anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists
please explain how social media platforms are the only place where these things still exists
in fact, there's no anonymity and questionable free expression on those platforms
the open web, yes, but these measures have nothing to do with that. my teen can keep his geocities-hosted blog and read yours.
- > parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions
You have to break the network effect as a community. This is why rich communities are successfully deploying cell-phone bans in schools while poorer students don’t have that option.
> Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression
It’s the government restricting ad-fueled rage and propaganda machines. Your suggestion for pervasive 18+ tagging is far more intrusive.
Where I agree with the general sentiment is in that these restrictions should be on the social media giants. If a child is on X, X gets fined. But at the end of the day, the people calling their electeds and mobilizing in primaries want any ban.
- >You have to break the network effect as a community. This is why rich communities are successfully deploying cell-phone bans in schools while poorer students don’t have that option.
Huh? Is your position that poor kids are being somehow oppressed by...not having phones banned? I am honestly baffled what point you're making here.
> the government restricting ad-fueled rage and propaganda machines. Your suggestion for pervasive 18+ tagging is far more intrusive.
In what world is putting the onus on content providers to self-label content intrusive? It's literally an html tag set and it's a existed for decades without offense so far. It doesn't even require government interaction at all - if it's unrated the browser doesn't load it.
I'm tired of parents pearl clutching away my civil liberties so that they don't have to parent. You made the decision to have kids, not me. Take responsibility for it. The entire world doesn't need to bend to make the lives of parents slightly more convenient.
- tbf, I think many people also want this. Is there anything more offensive than some internet niche subculture living differently, to those who came online during covid?
- On social media?
- > This isn't about children, and never was.
This is 100% about children.
At the moment, there is world wide pushback on children using social media. Ex countries pursuing this right now: Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, France, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Thailand. I'm sure I missed a few too.
And in the US, no federal efforts (yay dysfunctional legislature!) but at the state level; Florida, California, Tennessee, Utah, New York, Nebraska, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Vermont, and Ohio are all pursuing different forms of age restriction.
The science is pretty clear at this point: social media is terrible for mental health, attention, and addictive behaviors.
Now how to effectively restrict it without trampling on privacy rights? That's a very difficult question requiring some compromise. (I don't have the answers...)
- The answer is to define and regulate addictive design, and ideally outlaw algorithmic feeds. Companies holding personal data must consider it a liability, not an asset to monetize.
- There is absolutely no need to regulate 'addictive design'. That's what parents are for.
- Isn't the synchronised effort suspect to you?
Porn is arguably as damaging and addictive as social media. How do you explain the inaction regarding child access to porn in the last 25 years?
- > Porn is arguably as damaging and addictive as social media
I haven’t seen evidence for this. Which is why I’ve personally pushed for social media bans on under-14s and restrictions on under-18s. But have not particularly cared to agitate similarly for any restrictions on porn.
- [dead]
- > Isn't the synchronised effort suspect to you?
People bring this up, but these efforts aren't very fast and they cause a lot of noise, and social media has been terrible for people and children for a while now so... If I'm a politician and I hear of someone proposing something about it elsewhere, I'm going to do it too. If it works out, there's a race to claim credit; if it fizzles out, no harm for being the one to bring a fizzly bill; if it ends up terrible, you still get name recognition, so it's not so bad.
> How do you explain the inaction regarding child access to porn in the last 25 years?
Legislative bodies have tried lots of things in the last 25 years, just nothing terribly effective.
- The brainrotting effects of social media are increasingly being recognized. The effects of porn are not as noticeable in schools and workplaces.
- So if it's unhealthy for children, let parents regulate it. It's not the role of the state to destroy my civil liberties so that parents don't have to think too hard about what to allow their children to interact with.
- The law would require parental consent. Parents should parent better right?
23 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 6 hours ago | 24 comments