this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
764 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59672 readers
3023 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.
I was under the impression that kids don't smoke anymore because it is not trendy like it was in my parents' times. But they do drink alcohol. And especially they do vape.
Interesting how in parents' times, you did not have to be 18 to buy alcohol... But juvenile alcoholism is a much bigger problem now. As if there is some bigger underlying reason...
I'm really confused by this perspective and your comparsion to cigarettes is completely inadequette — you can't compare substances to social constructs.
If parents can't influence their kids how is goverment powered prohibition supposed to do that?
List one social construct that is successfully prohibited by a governing body and actually provides societal value. The only thing comes to mind is porn and take a look how fucking twisted countries where porn is supressed are. This is some north korea level of stupidity.
This law is unprecedented and usually I'd say it should be approached with great care but clearly it's just populist virtue signaling because it's simply stupid and is backed by zero scientific or intelectual basis.
I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.
So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?
Where are you getting "corporate website"? when it would affect all social media websites including Lemmy and Mastodon or your moms blog comments.
The idea of online social exchange of opinions or experiences is absolutely a social construct. We literally didn't have this and now it's part of every single person's life in some shape. How can you just prohibit that? Imagine prohibiting phone calls lol it's incredibly stupid.
Again you compare this to substances and driving? You can't be serious here? If you can't even understand this issue then you shouldn't be parenting let alone tell other people how to.
It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.
As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.
but that's not the issue in question. The issue is social media is introducing negative mental effects into teens life. Which we can all agree is true to some extent.
Now, how should we address this? Should we target specific elements like algorithmic timelines and lack of anti-bullying moderation which btw are 2 things that are scientifically proven here or we prohibit teens from accessing all social media even one that has no these harmful designs?
Do you see how this is just a shitty policy no matter how you look at it? It doesn't prevent big corps from making a bank and does zero things to address the actual issue. It's fucking stupid.
Prohibition only feeds black markets.
Except it doesn't, like with their smoking example.
Or, if you'd like another... there are age requirements for buying alcohol. Based on your comments, there must be a massive thriving black market for selling moonshine to kids, yet I've seen zero evidence of such a thing.
I have evidence in form of drinking classmates. Moderately so in my school because it was cultured, but classmates told it was much worse in their previous schools. I guess it largely comes from the families.
An anecdote is not evidence. Do you have evidence?
My anecdote is that I've never even heard of children buying moonshine once.
I thought not about buying moonshine through specific channels but rather asking an older friend/acquaintance/family member to do it.
Even that isn't particularly popular amongst children. Youth drinking has dropped substantially over the years.
I also don't really get your point. We should stop under 18s/16s from drinking via asking their parents for some by... removing all restrictions altogether?
No, my point was that the reasons are way deeper than "being allowed to buy alcohol on their own".
Reasons for what? What are you advocating here?
You imposed yourself into a debate where someone said restrictions have zero effect other than creating black markets. I and others pointed out that's untrue.
Then you came along and now you seem to be arguing with me then now you're agreeing with me but being really vague about it.