665
Australia bans social media for under 16s
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
665 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
2401 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
China Video Game Ban v2.0: Electric Boogaloo
Parents should be parenting, not delegate their responsibilities to a nanny state.
That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.
Solution is to fund a social safety net, not ban social media.
but but that requires actually effort and budget that we'd have to take away from Australian oligarchs!
if social media is fediverse, you're right; if social media is agents of surveillance capitalism, fuck social media
what's "social" about what most people call social media?
Governmemts doesn't care, any platform that empowers civillians to communicate with each other is "social media". Governments love to control and restrict communications.
Lemmy would be considered social media. Eventually they would be requiring social media to verify IDs. So Lemmy instances will be required to verify IDs or be banned from certain countries.
even YouTube got in an exception list. So it's not an "all or nothing" approach, it seems.
Youtube got an exeption because Alphabet Inc. lobbied them to do so to get kids used to Youtube. Lemmy does not have the lobbying power like a mega corporation, plus, its a good excuse to get rid of a left-leaning platform, since governments tend to be against the left.
even "crash course" alone is enough of a reason to keep YouTube accessible
A social safety net you say... like a place we could gather all the children to teach them things and let them play under supervision?
So are we gonna put teens in kindergarden?
What? No! They can have their own age appropriate place to learn and play under supervision.
Well I hope Australians are a homogenous society. Like they don't have racial minorities or LGBT kids that have to keep their identities closeted and have no one to talk to. Every Australian is so open and accepting amirite?
Imagine kids have conservative parents that would kick them out if they came out as LGBT, classmates are just constantly using "yo thats's gay" as an insult, while teacher and administrators dismiss any reports bullying. Have no adult they trust, and the same conservative parents would not let them see a therapist because that being "weak". Then when they wanna go online and vent and just have someone to talk to, the government steps in and "help" them by banning online communications.
"We Saved The Kids" Amirite?
But what about those Parental Responsibilities you were talking about earlier? Are you saying we now need extra social safety nets for kids who don't fit the mold and get bullied? Extra places for them to learn and play under supervision? Because I don't think that's going to be economical without boarding them there, away from their parents.
Parents should be loving and caring and and set up restrictions on their phone and block acess to danger things, what these restrictions would entail is up to the maturity of each kid.
In the event that the parents are shitty horrible people, they should have supportative environment in school that can help them. Adults to talk to, classmates that friendly and form friendships
In case the parents are not just shitty, and become abusive, there should be a legal procedure to transfer them to suitable guardians.
Unfortunately, there are often shitty/abusive parents, school environment is also toxic, and then social services don't do anything about it. Therefore there should not be any restriction by the government on the internet. In case 1,2 and 3 all fail, the internet provides a last resort for peer support.
Before attempting to restrict internet access, first fix everything else.
So you do want a nanny state.
The term "nanny state" typically refers to a government that intrude on every aspect of life that should not be the role of government.
Examples:
What food to eat.
Clothing to wear.
Places you are allowed to go.
What time you have to return home.
Bed times.
Having a non toxic school envionment or invervening in cases of child abuse is not typically under the unbrella of "nanny state".
Otherwise you'd be saying that any country that protects against child abuse to be a "nanny state".
Funny, conservatives would absolutely include telling parents how to raise their kids in the definition of a Nanny State.
This isn't even delegating. It's more of an equivalent of stuffing your fingers into your ear holes and going "nanananan CAN'T HEAR YOU"
Parents should be Parenting?
If they haven't been parenting what have they been doing for the last 40 years?
And if thwy have been parenting how's that workout for us so far?
There's been no age ban on social media since the internet was founded but there's record mental health crisis on young people.