this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
138 points (94.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27089 readers
3298 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I saw this article, which made me think about it...

Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes world-first laws


Seeing what kind of brainrot kids are watching, makes me think it's a good idea. I wouldn't say all content is bad, but most kids will get hooked on trash content that is intentionally designed to grab their attention.

What would be an effective way to enforce a restriction with the fewest possible side effects? And who should be the one enforcing that restriction in your opinion?

(page 2) 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] transscribe7891@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree with the under-16 social media ban, but figuring out how and who implements is definitely going to be the hard part. Ideally it would be parents first, but that's been the status quo up to now and it hasn't worked. And as someone who has been "18+" online since I was 10... raising the age limit on the services themselves is only going to work to a certain extent. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

Email is social media. Do you agree with an under 16 email ban?

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I don't believe it's something for the government to enforce. Any law that requires a nongovernment agency to collect identification means that identification is at risk of being stollen and means it will be used to track the person. If every person using the internet will have to prove their age everywhere, it's going to be a mess.

Whatever company has the worst security will have all the IDs stollen and used everywhere else. And I'm sure at first, it will be used so that criminals can frame others for their online crimes really easily.

I mean how do you prove the person using the internet is the one in the ID over the internet. It's easy enough to just use the picture on the ID and some "AI" to produce a fake image if they're going to require taking a picture of who's using it or something like that. This won't stop any minors from accessing information they shouldn't. The only way to do that is through education to make them realize they don't want to access that information and then give them the tools to avoid it. Not try to keep it from them. That just makes them want it more and to have to become criminals to do it. And further, if they're committing that minor crime just to do something normal it desensitizes them to more serious crimes because they don't understand the reasoning for them. Which is why making minor stuff that doesn't affect anyone but the offender a crime is always a bad idea.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

How? Make it a crime for every manager of the social media companies to let a child in.

fewest possible side effects?

No. That is not a goal when it is about child protection.

Yes, but leave them the SMSs

[–] MooseTheDog@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Should anyone use social media as it exists today? Is it really social media anymore? Does that mask really cover all the horribleness

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What should it be called? Agreed that the vast majority of it is a dumpster fire of lies and brain rot, but what would you rename it?

[–] MooseTheDog@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I don't see it getting better before it gets much worse. Exploitation is the closest legal term. This is something we have literally never seen before as a species. It's like naming a whole new animal or landmark - nothing to be done in haste. So much of the discussion is useless because it's been framed in the favor of our abusers. In almost every facet, from the server to your phone - it's just trying to suck every bit of labor it can to feed the cycle.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -2 points 4 days ago

I think kids should be aborted

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I mean, you can't really do it without parents.

But there could be a law that any phone tied to a number a minor possesses is locked down so it can't install the apps. It wouldn't stop web based, but apps seem to be a worse problem for various reasons.

It's not even so much the content that's the problem, it's the delivery mechanism, how it effects dopamine release, and how damaging those changes can be to a developing brain.

Its similar to the lootbox system that was regulated in various countries. Human brains will keep trying the next item in their feed because there's a chance something good shows up. If every post was good it would actually cause less addiction.

But a child has shit tier impulse control. They'll going to keep pulling the proverbial level forever, wading thru shit for the slightest dopamine hit. All the meanwhile still being influenced by what they scroll past.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Yes, parents obviously still pay an important role. But we regulate many things for people under the age of 18 to generally good effect.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›