this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
674 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
2859 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Eh, I don't think this is the best solution.

The assumption is as soon as you turn 17 you're smart enough and have the critical thinking skills to navigate social media without it negatively affecting you? Kinda dumb.

There could be an argument that at least try to block it while young peoples brains are still developing, maybe there's benefit in that.

Older people than 16 are still duped by propaganda, and become addicted to social media, and all the negative consequences.

What we need is regulation imo. Good, smart, progressive, altruistic regulation that is for the benefit of all. Ain't gonna happen though, because sOcIaLiSm and "mUh FrEeDoMs".

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, there are adults (in both my generation and the previous one) who have fewer critical thinking skills than today's teens and young adults. This feels like a band-aid solution to avoid actually fixing the problems of (1) not teaching critical thinking and logic and (2) the toxic content, misinformation and disinformation on these platforms (I recognise the second one is much harder whilst trying to preserve security and privacy as well).

The older generations always think the younger generations are lazy and lesser. They don't believe they can parent because they know how shit they were at parenting. So they are voting to take away parental rights and give those rights to the government. And then say they are pro small government.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago

So what? There will be a "Yes I'm over 16" check box which will be as meaningful as the "Yes I'm over 18" one on porn sites?

Any hope of governments or social media sites enforcing this will come with big ethical and technical compromises and I dont think anyone is actually going to really bother.

We already have limits on what children do with other potentially harmful things like fire, sharp objects, heights and roads and they all come from parents. If this law has any real and positive impact it will be the message that it sends to parents.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Then I read that chat apps and YouTube would not be banned, and scoffed

Literally chat apps are social media. You can post stories and pump memes and news. You can even have bots that scrape and post content. YouTube is just a matter of checking a box whether it's "for kids" and they already do that. Basically the whole thing is stupid

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spector@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago

Another way to look at this is a back channel method of breaking down the big tech oligopoly.

I'm all for this. Kids are smart. They start using the rest of the internet. They'll become tech savvy.

[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago

Now ban everyone else (except Lemmy of course).

So.... they banned social media for a whole 15 seconds?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 20 hours ago

This is going to harm kids.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›