787
Australia bans social media for under 16s (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
224 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

While specific platforms haven’t been named in the law, the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister. Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Youtube: offers Shorts and aggressively markets them at any demo that responds well to Tik Tok, competing for a more toxic comments section with years of experience.

    WhatsApp: all the group chats and online bullying that you banned facebook to get away from, 1:1, day of the ban.

    Should we identify society root causes and address those? 🤔No. No, it's the kids who are wrong /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's the parents who are wrong.

    Parents shouldn't allow their kids to use social media until they can handle it. Some kids don't have issues, whereas others end up experiencing severe depression largely as a result of too much or too little social media exposure. Parents should be the ones responsible here, both for deciding the age and for culpability if they knowingly contribute to problems by either intentionally over or under exposing their children to social media.

    But at no point should the government be deciding things like ages, because enforcement would necessitate privacy violations of either the parents (if they need to allow an underage account) of the children. Screw that, let the parents decide and hold them accountable for any abuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are arguing against yourself. In the first paragraph you say that the parents should keep kids from social media.

    In the second, you say that it would be a violation of privacy if parents would keep kids from social media.

    Kids need policing, it's going to need to be done by the parents no matter what the laws are. Personally, I don't think the laws matter much in this regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    In the first paragraph you say that the parents should keep kids from social media.

    Not necessarily. It's up to the parents to know what their kids can handle.

    Keeping kids off social media doesn't have to be a privacy violation. If you don't trust your kids to follow the rules, don't give them access to devices they could use to violate them. If I give my kids access to a device, it's because I trust them with that device. I don't put any parental controls on it, either I trust them or they don't get the device. It's none of my business what they do with devices I trust them to have.

    Kids need discipline and trust, not policing. If they break the rules, discipline them (take devices away and whatnot), but don't surveil them.

    And yeah, the laws don't matter as written because good parents will help their kids circumvent bad laws. My problem is with the government thinking it has a say in how I raise my children. The government should only step in if there's abuse, but other than that, they should stick to advising parents by providing high quality research to parents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent