Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not a TikTok fan by any means but that really does feels to me like bordering on delusion…
Why?
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
301–310 of 598 posts
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#302Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Social Media isn't even as bad as Tobacco I'd say let alone Heroin.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#303Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Your proposal to punish parents does the same.
How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#304Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#305Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens. Your proposal to punish parents does the same. How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution. That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.
You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with. What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?
see: recent article about Snap sending pushes to kids during school hours
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before. Obviously it's difficult to pin a 20-year trend on a single cause. But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones; and with social med…
> But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones I've been pondering recently how much time parents are spending on phones, that, 20 years ago they might have otherwise spent engaging with their kids.
There’s some “well we have no idea how much is quality time” argument, but just looking across my own families over time the reality is more like modern parents being way more present than their parents.
The issue lies elsewhere. It’s almost a zeitgeist, the direction and evolution of ideas, and less any actual cause. At least that’s how it seems to me.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#308Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?
Oh jeez, I wonder who on Earth could be behind this mass push for surveillance?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#309Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens. Your proposal to punish parents does the same. How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.