51–60 of 302 posts
Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.
Regardless of the underlying motives and surveillance outcomes, it will surely affect the kids too. So it's worth discussing.
Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.
This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.
it's illegal for kids to vape too right? how's that working out? (answer: https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-... )
Somehow all the countries are suddenly proposing the same thing. You'd think at least one of these countries might try something different if they actually cared about the kids, like banning algorithmic feeds. Not suspicious at all.
I'm probably going down a conspiracy theory, but it's notable when all the Five Eyes countries seem to start talking about the same problem and pushing through legislation. The US would probably do the same if not for the constitution.
I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…
A better measure would be to mandate that social media platforms can only show you content from people you follow, and in chronological order.
But how do you control what a kid can or cannot follow? They can still follow Andrew Tate and his temu versions
I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…
> Honestly, treating social media, porn, and other things as drugs would probably even be the right step. Adopting the drug prohibition model is fine, if what we want is to lavishly enrich the social media cartels, and visit upon the rest of the world needless crime, misery, addiction, and death.
Quebec has it, too. IMO it should be banned for under-18s instead of under-16s.
The only problem is how to enforce it.
The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting.
I think it's important we ask: could we invoke this ban without surveillance?
- identity scan is one solution
But surely there are other solutions? Can't you just make laws that get kids in trouble if they get caught on social media? Kids get in trouble for missing school.. there are other incentives than identify checks, surely?