this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
177 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
3084 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
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

As long as the social media's primary goal is causing addiction and clout chasing behavior, the age limit should be 60

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

my father (62) is addicted to social media and it's awful

[–] a4ng3l 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Difficult debate. Not sure the traditional media are so much better. I personally think that educating teens to handle whatever medias would be preferable to a blanked ban. It’s going to be interesting to see how it will evolve.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Traditional media aren't associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.

Teens have always bullied, so it's hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn't as bad is a good idea in my book.

[–] a4ng3l 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe. And life, in general, is filled with bullies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, bullying isn't the only danger. Addiction is another and that's just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.

[–] a4ng3l 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids? I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good default, I'm of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn't enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.

Sugar isn't restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there's a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.

[–] a4ng3l 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don't know about addictiveness but sugar isn't as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don't get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren't taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago

The children yearn for the forums

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I used to read Australian news every day. Now I just don't bother. This government just wastes their time on complete and utter nonsense like this while we're in the middle of a housing crisis that they're doing their absolute best to exacerbate.

I feel like I became dumber just reading this article.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

100% albanese has some cushy job on a board linen up for when he loses to the potato man. Its all bread crumbs and spectacle

give another billion to the arms dealers albo, 'department of defence' lol, fucking disgrace

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good luck to them on ever enforcing that without even more mass surveillance

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

How do we get more mass surveillance? I know! Lets make up a reason why we should implement it. Children!

[–] LANIK2000 11 points 2 weeks ago

I mean there's a point to be a had. A blanket age restriction is probably the wrong way to go about it, but like, stranger danger doesn't apply to just the physical world. We teach kids the importance of not talking to strangers, but are completely fine with literal nazi forums. Nobody would let their kid attend a KKK meeting, but yet again, a literal nazi forum is fine?

[–] random_character_a 9 points 2 weeks ago

Good luck enforcing it numnuts.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine the most disgusting people on the planet violently imposing their "morality" on your kids.

[–] latenightnoir 5 points 2 weeks ago

I am becoming convinced that trying to establish a generally applicable age limit is the wrong way to go about these types of things, but instead we must focus on identifying the specific developmental markers which represent each phase and focus on those. We should teach parents to "read" their children's progress and determine dynamically, based on both general data and individual empirical observations. Some children may not be ready for Social Media even at 16, while others who have more natural social inclinations may be hampered by a delayed introduction of these realities.

We've been treating the subject of children like they're a bulk product, but they're just as individually specific as any other human being. They just lack a fully defined brain structure and the contextualisation and understanding which come from life experience, but I doubt anyone could argue they don't have a personality or cognitive uniqueness.

Note: I am not talking about the age of consent! That one should always be a thing!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You’re posting a lot for a one day account.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The non-stop Lemmy grind is one hell of a drug huh

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I’m just saying

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well you're one to talk

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because nostr and the fediverse care so much about what they think. I'm absolutely certain that every fediverse instance will immediately block any Australians under 16 years old. /s

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I imagine the australian government is going to try and get us to register to use the internet, can't wait, so exciting.

[–] Cypher 5 points 2 weeks ago

Congrats you just realised the mygov ID is being slowly but surely pushed towards being mandatory for access to any online services.

[–] levzzz -2 points 2 weeks ago

I think 13 is fine, even though it's not really enforced anywhere. Wouldn't give phones to toddlers though...

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

At whatever age they want to.

holy shit why would you deprive kids of (often their only way to have any) social contacts and think you're the good guys

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, same with sugar, cigarettes and alcohol. Give these children what they want.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Cigarettes and alcohol are proven cancerous, physically addictive, etc.

I don't think legislation should be based on mental gymnastics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The "good guys" gotta ensure "good thinking" to do more gooder! \s

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You wanna get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid? Because that's how you get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid.

The same parent that handed the kid a device to be on social media can also take the kid out somewhere to socialize with other kids.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've been in online communities since shortly after my 10th birthday and this has never once been a problem.

Most of my friends when I was a teenager were people I met online. It was beyond a reasonable doubt good for me to be on the Internet during that time because it was the only place where I fit in, where I could be myself.

If I ever have kids, I hope they fit in better than I did offline, but if they don't, there is no way I am going to prevent them from socializing in online communities.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's great. That's a personal antecdote though. I was online, unsupervised at 14 years old back in the late 90s, and being into anime and furry shit, I definitely had more than a couple people online trying to roleplay sexual shit with me...a fourteen year old kid. Even though my account profiles stated so. Unfettered, unsupervised access is also not the solution. I'm basing my opinion on this on my own experience as well. There are a shitload of predators out there.

I am not saying a blanket, hamfisted ban is the solution either. This is more complex than being a black and white problem. Where the fuck is everybody's parents? They should be the ones actively guiding their kid through online spaces, not the government. It was literally a slogan in the 90s to "ask your parents before accessing such and such website" on every ad having to do with the Internet. WTF happened.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Satanic Panic but this time about pedophiles.

These laws will be used to restrict information, not to protect anyway, don't delude youraelf.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't care about the laws, I don't think parents should be allowing access to social media to their five year olds. Preteens maybe, with heavy supervision, yeah that's reasonable, but not toddlers for fuck's sake.

The law can go fuck itself, sure, but parents need to step the fuck up in this day and age. There is no reason for a 1st grader to be posting to X/FB/whatever. They should be playing Legos, riding bikes, and digging holes in the playground dirt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Good luck arguing it here. I wonder how many here are 16 or younger, or close enough to that age where they grew up with the technology constantly in their face and couldn't POSSIBLY imagine having lived without it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Pretty sure you get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid by going to church.

When they gonna ban church for kids under 16?