AntOnARant@programming.dev
on 19 Dec 19:26
nextcollapse
What? How did you come to that conclusion? Most teens would be far better off without the constant barrage of content these websites push to us. Instead of having these laws, parents should be doing their jobs and protect their kids rather than letting their brains rot on the internet.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net
on 20 Dec 02:34
collapse
My kid keeps telling me ”its just guidelines" but its getting them off YouTube. Tiktok & others aren’t even on their radar.
I’m only on Lemmy & haven’t noticed anything. A couple people on insta etc haven’t complained but I’m not sure how much (if any) ID they have needed.
So far its OK but I still have pretty mixed feelings. We’ll see how it goes.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net
on 20 Dec 02:33
collapse
It never applied to corpo slop factories in particular
belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 20 Dec 16:23
collapse
They should punish companies for deliberately creating toxic environments, not kids for trying to interact with the world
randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Dec 21:08
nextcollapse
Its basically illegal to be young. I don’t think this is going to change anything. Kids are on the internet because they cant legally express being anything but a minor until they’re a third through their life. They’re constantly monitored, censored, and scrutinized. I think large tech corps are exploiting a real need kids have to participate. Sometimes ::tin foil hat:: I believe this is by design. Thanks for coming to my tedx talk.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
on 20 Dec 12:16
collapse
you’re expected to be grown up and mature by 18 which is impossible because you could never make any experiences at all
you can’t drive anywhere if you grow up in a rural area and your parents refuse to drive you anywhere (happened to me, mum only let me see that one kid from rich parents to socialize because she wanted me to “grow up in good neighborhood” - needless to say, it didn’t work out and we don’t have contact anymore).
I get where you’re coming from but I think this ban is based around intent. While Roblox is definitely an evil ass company, their ultimate goal is to make entertaining games and make money off purchases in those games. Also, they’ve already implemented ID checks for voice chat and even then it’s quite heavily moderated.
The ultimate goal of social media is simply addiction, data harvesting, and selling that data to everyone who’ll pay for it.
orioler25@lemmy.world
on 20 Dec 07:20
nextcollapse
Yeah. Its worse for them, they know that, we all do. It isn’t about what’s good for them it’s about how fucking terrified liberals are of their inability to control the internet as young people make memes about how rad public transit and killing corporate executives is.
The teen social media ban is just a distraction, carefully crafted by gambling industry lobbyists to ensure no one was talking about restricting gambling advertising.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
on 20 Dec 14:30
nextcollapse
If they ban social media they should also make it illegal to block access to a website without an account.
They should still be able to browse Facebook and Instagram even without an account, since they are no longer legally able to have an account, and communities and government still insist on posting important information through social media websites that younger people should be able to have access to.
Nomorereddit@lemmy.today
on 20 Dec 15:17
nextcollapse
Popular discourse on the effect of social media use on well-being has grown sensational & irrational.
It’s reminiscent of similar panics where
it was once taken for granted that serial dramas on the radio, comic books, going to the cinema, and arcade games were all once considered to be undeniably harmful, particularly for the youth.
Since these discussions can get awfully cringe, I’ve decided to inject some goddamn science into this discussion by referring to and summarizing a recent scientific review of common myths.
The full article fills in the details with links to scientific research.
Myth: There is undeniable evidence that time spent on social media has a toxic effect on its users.
Warranted claim: Time spent on social media does not have a strong effect on the well-being of its users.
Myth: Social media addiction is pervasive and harmful.
Warranted claim: Experts disagree on whether social media addiction exists, what the diagnostic criteria are, and how it should be measured.
Myth: Spending more time on social media will inevitably make users depressed, anxious, sad, and lonely.
Warranted claim: Over time, declines in well-being are associated with increased social media use.
Myth: Social media are the main cause of the problems teens are facing.
Warranted claim: Preexisting vulnerabilities (eg, poverty, mental health, lack of family support) are associated with both adolescent social media use and adolescent ill-being.
Myth: Compared with other harms, the harm of social media use is far greater.
Warranted claim: Once the primary predictors of well- and ill-being are accounted for, social media use is a negligible factor in explaining variance in well- and ill-being.
Myth: The adoption of social media, especially on mobile devices, perfectly coincides with the beginning of the contemporary adolescent mental health and loneliness crises.
Warranted claim: Longitudinal studies do not support the conclusion that the adoption of mobile or social media preceded or caused declines in adolescent mental health or the adolescent loneliness epidemic.
Myth: Social media are the reason people don’t spend time together.
Warranted claim: Social media use does not cause people to stop people from talking to each other face-to-face, rather they are used to help people keep in touch when face-to-face interactions decrease.
Myth: Teens using their smartphones around each other is a sign of a disconnected and discontented generation.
Warranted claim: The effects of co-present mobile use are highly situational and influenced by social norms.
Myth: The solution is to quit or ban social media.
Warranted claim: The benefits of social media abstinence vary by person and by patterns of use.
Myth: We do not need another study on social media.
Warranted claim: The research on the harms or benefits of social media must continue as platforms, features, habits, contexts, and users constantly change.
threaded - newest
It won’t. Hurting teenagers is in the entire point, especially certain vulnerable groups like LGBT teens.
Yup, it’s going to cut off so many kids from their support networks.
Our government cares more about making baby steps to greater digital control and “protect the kids” packaging always sells well.
furry.engineer/…/115732089524843137
It’s going to leave a body count mark my words
What? How did you come to that conclusion? Most teens would be far better off without the constant barrage of content these websites push to us. Instead of having these laws, parents should be doing their jobs and protect their kids rather than letting their brains rot on the internet.
That’s a dishonest talking point
I’ve watched the debate closely and hurting teens or anyone else is definitely not the objective. Whether it succeeds or not is another question.
Isolating LGBT terns us the admitted goal. That and Gaza related censorship
Admitted by whom? How does Gaza fit in with under 16s?
I’m not a teenager but getting off Instagram and twitter has been amazing for my wellbeing
That’s all well and good, but getting kids off those platforms is neither the goal nor the outcome of this new law.
Anecdotally untrue from my own kid, their school friends & my sisters kids.
If you’re in aus, can you share how the ban has been? I’d like to hear how it’s actually working out…
I’m from Australia and have no idea. I only use lemmy and that’s it
My kid keeps telling me ”its just guidelines" but its getting them off YouTube. Tiktok & others aren’t even on their radar.
I’m only on Lemmy & haven’t noticed anything. A couple people on insta etc haven’t complained but I’m not sure how much (if any) ID they have needed.
So far its OK but I still have pretty mixed feelings. We’ll see how it goes.
It never applied to corpo slop factories in particular
They should punish companies for deliberately creating toxic environments, not kids for trying to interact with the world
Its basically illegal to be young. I don’t think this is going to change anything. Kids are on the internet because they cant legally express being anything but a minor until they’re a third through their life. They’re constantly monitored, censored, and scrutinized. I think large tech corps are exploiting a real need kids have to participate. Sometimes ::tin foil hat:: I believe this is by design. Thanks for coming to my tedx talk.
you’re expected to be grown up and mature by 18 which is impossible because you could never make any experiences at all
you can’t drive anywhere if you grow up in a rural area and your parents refuse to drive you anywhere (happened to me, mum only let me see that one kid from rich parents to socialize because she wanted me to “grow up in good neighborhood” - needless to say, it didn’t work out and we don’t have contact anymore).
I started using social media when I was around 12 and I can say with confidence it brought me significantly more harm than good.
For those opposed: should we let them have cigarettes as well?
Fuck off nazi
😑
is Zuck giving you his titty milk or something
You do realize that Lemmy counts under these laws, right?
That is pretty lame tbh.
Your argument might have some weight if Roblox had been included in the ban. You know, Roblox, the well-known haven of groomers and pedos.
I get where you’re coming from but I think this ban is based around intent. While Roblox is definitely an evil ass company, their ultimate goal is to make entertaining games and make money off purchases in those games. Also, they’ve already implemented ID checks for voice chat and even then it’s quite heavily moderated.
The ultimate goal of social media is simply addiction, data harvesting, and selling that data to everyone who’ll pay for it.
Yeah. Its worse for them, they know that, we all do. It isn’t about what’s good for them it’s about how fucking terrified liberals are of their inability to control the internet as young people make memes about how rad public transit and killing corporate executives is.
First half…im with you.
Second half…Lol, sure bud.
Its so funny when some of you guys act like you know what you’re talking about
You don’t know what’s funny w out your tik tok.
What a weird thing to make up about someone just to be mad.
That is a weird thing to say, and it sounds like you are just looking for something to be angry about.
“no u”
The teen social media ban is just a distraction, carefully crafted by gambling industry lobbyists to ensure no one was talking about restricting gambling advertising.
If they ban social media they should also make it illegal to block access to a website without an account.
They should still be able to browse Facebook and Instagram even without an account, since they are no longer legally able to have an account, and communities and government still insist on posting important information through social media websites that younger people should be able to have access to.
Not reading the article, its a good thing.
How will they ever know if they cannot spy on them via “social media”[1]?
[1: presumably the term’s used as the corporate media uses it, meaning only the corporate spyware “social media”, not the fediverse.]
Popular discourse on the effect of social media use on well-being has grown sensational & irrational. It’s reminiscent of similar panics where
Since these discussions can get awfully cringe, I’ve decided to inject some goddamn science into this discussion by referring to and summarizing a recent scientific review of common myths. The full article fills in the details with links to scientific research.