The majority of americans would not support the means by which they restrict social media use.
Neither does the 1st amendment.
Which is why mass surveillance is always shipped under the guise of child safety
Which doesn’t necessarily translate into them believing or supporting age verification and privacy violation to do it.
If you haven’t noticed, what the majority of Americans support means jack squat lately
I’m of the minority that says ban it completely. It has done this country and the world absolutely no favors. Ever since the Epstein class realized they could use it to brain wash morons to support their asinine beliefs, it has gone to shit. Foreign adversaries have manipulated it to spread propaganda and divide the country. It didn’t have to be like this. Facebook was just a place to talk to your friends and post photos from the party you were at with them. Everything was chronological and you only heard from people that you actually knew IRL. We couldn’t have that, because Zuckerberg needed to sell ads. The decision to open up the feed and show you shit from random ass people gave birth to influencer culture and massive amounts of mis /disinformation.
Are you, by any means, aware of what Lemmy (and Fediverse platforms) is (are)?
I get it, but it’s more akin to a message board than Facebook
To us, perhaps.
To the kind of people who’d have the “power” to enforce the kind of prohibition you’re advocating for, the lawmakers and bureaucrats from regulatory agencies, most of them (if not all of them) can’t even tell where’s the “any” key the computer is asking them to press (“press any key to continue”), so you can only imagine them knowing what an ActivityPub is (maybe they’ll see the “pub” at the end and think “hey, kids shouldn’t be allowed in a pub”).
“But the leopards wont eat my face”
Hate to break it to you but in the countries where they are restricting it they are doing so to Youtube and Reddit and many other places. Anywhere the plebs can talk to each other.
These laws make no such distinction
Why would a message board not be considered social media?
This is a terrible response. Social media connects people. That can be exploited and is, so needs to be reformed. But that connection is a lifeline for marginalized and smaller communities. Social media makes it possible for disabled people like me to connect, to organize and advocate in ways that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. It makes it possible to advance understanding of issues that traditional media undervalued. Consider how much public understanding of police abuse of minority communities has changed since we could see the videos and hear different narratives directly. Or how much understanding of LGBTQ communities has changed. Social media is wonderful. We just need to figure out how to reform it and make those reforms durable.
Exactly! It’s Isolation of children to cover up abuse. It’s not a coincidence that they’re banning them from having access to recording devices and communication outside.of control at the same time the supreme court is.ruling that kids.ha e to.have their genitals inspected before they play sports and that gay conversion therapy (which is sexual abuse of g LGBT kids by their parents and religion to try and turn them straight ) is a 1st amendment right
Even if altruistic, your proposal to “ban it” is not consistent with free and open societies.
Also do you realize what we’re communicating on now can be considered social media. Should this be banned too?
“I don’t like xyz; ban it.” – that’s the same reasoning that ends up banning prolific books to “keep us safe.”
I’d much rather it be an all or nothing thing. And nothing is by far the better option, for every reason you stated.
I think I left shortly after things were no longer chronological. It’s been so long I can’t remember what the flash straw was. I don’t remember seeing stuff from non-friends though.
I came to say basically the same thing. Its all toxic. And really the only way to get an under16 only ban to work is to force online ID which should never exist, so fuck that
That’s not true. Just hold parents accountable and let anyone report under 16s using social media. Once enough parents have stories of their punishment people will keep their kids off it.
That’s a terrible enforcement mechanism. Do you not remember being under 16 or are you just naive? I did a bunch of shit I never told my parents about. They can’t watch me 24/7.
If your child gets hold of a weapon and hurts themselves or someone else then you are liable. I don’t really see how this is much different but I’m all ears.
And yes, I am a parent who’s kid doesn’t have social media. And yes, I am aware that we need to be educating parents on how to use parental controls and enforcing their use (on platform side as well as in the home).
First off, very few people have been held accountable in your example situation. Which is a travesty IMO. Secondly, it’s far easier to keep track of and store a weapon. Thirdly, the risk is completely different.
Let’s try again. Let’s say your kid gets ahold of spray paint and vandalizes some property. Many kids and parents have been held accountable in that situation and the risk isn’t really the point, it’s just moving goal posts.
The point is that as a parent you are responsible for the safety and well being of your child. Which proves you can be held accountable.
Can be? Yes. Will be? I doubt it. And that’s the only point I’m trying to make.
This moral panic has got to stop
i have an issue with government surveillance. my kids have never been on social media. wedidnt need to government to step in. hell, android’s parental controls are really good
I salute you! Truly need more, responsible,parents like you
Ban it for boomers too.
I’m the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez, “have you ever considered sitting down with your kids, turning off the TV (phone) and hitting them?”
But in seriousness we should be having conversations with kids. We shouldn’t be handing them a tablet or phone at 2 years old. We obviously can’t control kids, they have their own decisions to make but, we shouldn’t be shoving the internet down their throats the first day they’re born then being shocked they spend all their time on the internet.
i’d rather say ban opaque algorithmic feeds and such. this whole shit is nonsense, there’s not even a universal definition of social media.
16 is too high. I feel that under 13 would probably be the right age. Kids need to be slowly integrated into things they will deal with as adults, so having a 5 year range allows more gradual access.
If they really want to address the issues of social media, then they need to target the algorithms. They are designed to be as addictive as possible. These social media companies also need to be held accountable for what gets shown in feeds since it is a form of speech.
Or, you know, this is the first step with the final goal of killing off social media entirely.
One can dream…
Beats parenting.
I wouldn’t mind social media if it didn’t allow the uploading of photos/videos/images etc. text only and chat functions. That way you can still have group chat, pages to organize events, etc.
Why stop there? Just ban it entirely.
It’s not like it is actually helping society much.
