Social media ban for teenagers/kids, what do we think?

[szkodnix@sk.szkod.ovh]

@hpod16@eupolicy.social Can't parents just raise their kids instead? Banning social media is a poor shortcut to "solve" the issue.

[hauntshade@hauntshadesocial.nl]

@hpod16

"[...] This is not child protection; it is digital house arrest. Instead of hunting the perpetrators, the victims are being locked up. This is the logic of an overreaching nanny state that mistrusts its citizens. True security comes from strong families, not from state paternalism that drives teenagers into digital isolation. It won’t work anyway: our children will simply ask us to register their phones as adult devices."

Quote from: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/digital-house-arrest-how-the-eu-wants-to-disempower-families/

[simonharper@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 social media companies need to change their algorithms and better protect young and vulnerable users. They make billions. They can afford the dev work to do this.

[meowki@meowstodon.eu]

@hpod16 Depends on how it’s implemented. Digital ID checks: absolutely no! That is a data privacy nightmare. Going after big tech for addictive mechanisms: yes.

In the end you need to get rid of the addictive part to get children off of social media.

[lexinova@cyberplace.social]

@hpod16 it's a stupid idea.

Teenagers are more intelligent than any of old people in gov. so i let 3 to 6 hours for any ban to be bypassed.

And that will reduce their security as no one will ensure their security anymore because officially they aren't there anymore

[karlos@mindly.social]

@hpod16 Not Social Media, only Asocial Media like - almost all commercial ones. Why only for children? If lying would be taxed…

[leavex@mastodon.social]

Other:

Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Let’s break free from
Big Tech social media
and reconnect,
me and you.

[hiker@akk.fedcast.ch]

@hpod16 Yes or no is not enough. Unless we specify how this is to be implemented technically, this “protection” is too vague for me.

[ptvirgo@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 Ban surveillance and limit or ban algorithmic / commercial profiling.

[ksued@social.cologne]

@hpod16 Conversely, this means that all users must submit to identification. That cannot and must not be the solution.

[kjuh@troet.cafe]

@hpod16 Not a simple yes/no queston.

[unusnemo@friendica.rogueproject.org]

@hpod16

Makes perfect sense to me. How do you brainwash the youth if they keep having disparate information available to them? To be sure they are completely delusional we should close them off from any views besides those we choose for them. It is a perfectly rational decision from that perspective.

[laryllan@nerdculture.de]

@hpod16
Forced identity check for everyone? Not a good idea.

[nathan@ublog.hurel.me]

@hpod16@eupolicy.social ban without any educational plan is just postponing the problem.
Teaching teens to speech respectfully online, showing other platforms than BigTech ones and how moderation can work to protect themselves is a path to a solution #fediversepower

[murein@toot.wales]

@hpod16 Requiring everyone to prove their age instead of making the platforms safer seems wild to me. Especially when adults are susceptible to the same dangers that children are.
The implementation of a ban is also full of unintended consequences too. Even using the 'safest' implementation I can think of...
(The UK method is very stupid.)

[sunnythesheep@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 no, because that would be tantamount to reversing the roles of perpetrator and victim, relieving Big Tech of its responsibility, depriving young people (including those aged 14-16) of digital participation and/or criminalizing them if they circumvent age restrictions on their own, and on top of that, massively weakening privacy and data protection.

[sunnythesheep@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 if Big Tech cannot or does not want to guarantee the protection of minors, then Big Tech must be banned from Europe, not young people from social networks across the board. IMHO.

[kouki21@unredacted.social]

I don't like how the term ban means "we have to verify you using ID, deanonymize you, and attach your identity to your social media account." If even such a ban exists, that method shouldn't be used at all as it only harms adults. I'd rather agree if parents have to make child accounts and parent their kids themselves. It's not anyone's responsibility to parent other people's children, especially if you're unmarried/child-free. If you give your kids an ipad/smartphone, you've failed as a parent.

[kouki21@unredacted.social]

@hpod16 as someone whose both child-free, unmarried/single, and belong to one of the queer community (aromantic–asexual) I feel like this rules will harm us than giving benefit. And I grew up without a smartphone in my early childhood (as smartphones don't even exist).

[nitrml@tyrol.social]

@hpod16 for kids, yes absolutely. Kids under ~14 should not be on any digital platforms where strangers can contact them.

Teenagers are a different topic. Banning teens from all social media is overkill IMO. Better to combat addiction machines (algorithms).

And restriction enforcement is hard to do right.