21–30 of 111 posts
It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.
In most of Europe it's legal for Children to drink alcohol.
It seems like the things we ban for children are things that we might ban for everybody, but can get away with for children. Very few of those things are conclusively proven to be harmful -- perhaps firearms, motor vehicles, and smoking, and even those things put up a pretty good fight to stay alive as long as they did. Smoking is an interesting case. Vanishingly few people who smoke learned to do so as adults. Virtu…
It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.
We shouldn't ban children from drinking. It doesn't even help, because kids drink anyway, just illegally and largely unsupervised by adults. I certainly drank like a fish when I was underage.
It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.
In most of Europe it's legal for Children to drink alcohol.
this is something I've been dwelling on for the past couple days. I've avoided social media my entire adult life, and I'm realizing its akin to not having a car in a suburban sprawl, I can't interact properly with a lot of the modern internet, because of it.
Of course there are advantages, which I don't think i need to state in this community...
But i feel this is something people overlook when discussing banning social media for children. There is a balance to be struck, like anything.
>I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults.
>If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful or for geopolitical reasons, fine. But ban it universally; if we’re not willing to do that, stop pretending that a child-only ban is principled. A child-only ban is what you do when you want to do something but can’t think of anything better to do, and you don’t want to impact voters.
There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users, especially children and adolescents. Even Meta has kept a study on this topic under wraps. What OP is doing here is putting adults and children on the same level and saying that what applies to children must also apply to adults. The difference, however, is that we as adults have a responsibility toward children. Children enjoy special protection in society and, for good reason, are subject to limited criminal liability. We do this because we assume that children belong to a vulnerable and easily influenced group, and lack the mental and moral maturity to adequately assess their actions. We assume that adults have the necessary mental and moral maturity to adequately assess the consequences of their own actions, which is why they are granted more rights but also more responsibilities than children. OP does not reveal any contradiction or other ‘gotcha’ moment here, unless he generally takes issue with the relationship of responsibility between adults and adolescents.
>It’s like studying the social impact of vaping without considering the replacement activity (smoking). That's not how this works. If you ban vaping, not everyone - and not necessarily most people who vape - would be smoking instead. "X isn't as bad as Y" is not a good argument in favor of X. They can both be bad.
Aaaacckkkktuuaally, at my kids school vaping is now an epidemic of sorts. It's much cheaper, it's cool, you get it easily via Snapchat. Many kids later pick up smoking (anecdotally).