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

Technology

59696 readers
5278 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.

[–] drmoose 2 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

why would parents need a justification to parent?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Not a bad idea all things considered

Edit: Save for the "Showing your ID" part, anonymity is healthy for the net and far too rare these days

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Only for 16 seconds? Why?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago
[–] WhatYouNeed 1 points 16 hours ago

Good. Now block Shitter.

[–] atrielienz 15 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN's and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN's less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN's. It sounds like a great idea but I don't know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Most kids are not going to pay a subscription for a VPN, I don't think that would be as big of an issue as you think.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Well unless they go for free vpns and get data mined to the moon and back... Which is a far worse outcome imo.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

Not a bad choice.

[–] Yawweee877h444 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".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 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.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›