I understand the sentiment but feel that laws ostensibly meant to protect children ultimately take away their agency, especially in this case.

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 8:02 am I understand the sentiment but feel that laws ostensibly meant to protect children ultimately take away their agency, especially in this case.

Truth. and prohibition rarely works. Kids'll always find a way to get what they're not supposed to have. I still remember being 12....

'nuff said

The case with most laws, isn't it?

I'm for it. To be honest I'd like internet usage to form part of a general ethics class, somewhere in early secondary education. Until then, none at all.

Kids will always work their way around these things, but that's not to say there's no benefit from their being in place.

But how will an aging Kip Winger interact with them then?

In theory I think it's a great idea. Not sure how well it will work, though. Fake accounts are easy enough to make I suppose, nicknames, &c.

A_Man_Who_Tries wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 8:09 am Kids will always work their way around these things, but that's not to say there's no benefit from their being in place.

For myself it comes down to intent. Obviously I'm not a mind reader but bipartisan efforts in curtailing access to information speaks more towards control than promoting good mental health. There are positives to keeping very young minds away from toxic online behavior but that should exist within the realm of parenting instead of politicians promoting the ban hammer.

They should ban adults first and then see how that goes. I remember being a kid on Myspace and slowly seeing the olds in my area join, almost one at a time. Not talking about the older dudes who would be at shows or whatever, but like, authority figures. I knew it was bad news then and I know it’s bad news now, but the toothpaste isn’t going back in.

Aside from the very real harm it can do to kids, if banning kids from social media ultimately has a decentralizing effect, I’m all for it. We do not need to all be on the same websites.

I wonder how it would be enforced though - just telling the website you’re 18? I’ve definitely done THAT before.

I could almost see them using this to be a reason to give everyone who wants to participate a govt id login, which really sounds terrible. Imagine what that would do to conversations around Israel, healthcare, and anything else - trans kids. Nightmare.

andyman wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 9:08 am Funnily enough, when I was in Japan I downloaded Tinder for kicks, and you have to upload and verify your passport before you can use it (18+ only).
I thought that'd be a great way to keep kids off of instagram which is pretty bad for anyone's mental health.

Sure, some kids will get around it, but so many won't and I think that's worthwhile.

And the ones who do get around it will (and I’m not kidding here) demonstrate resourcefulness that will benefit them later.

I’m not opposed to the ban in principle, though I’m curious to see whether it has any empirically supported benefits.

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 8:51 am They should ban adults first and then see how that goes.

I'd go for that in a second.

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 8:51 am They should ban adults first and then see how that goes.

Word. Their presence is more insidious.