6 ms·

Parent your kids. There are countless services to block content you don't want. There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't

Parent your kids. There are countless services to block content you don't want. There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want. Quit thinking that government regulation & registration are the only ways to prevent children from accessing objectionable content. Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Just because the people you agree with are driving the boat right now, there is no guarantee they will be in charge for long. Edit: once again the government nanny staters get upset when someone brings up personal responsibilities. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you have to have a government (under the threat of violence) make it easier for you. Has everyone forgotten that social media isn't a right or a requirement for existence? You and your family can just not engage with it.

cineticdaffodil 1mo ago
[dead]
IshKebab 1mo ago
I agree, but also in fairness it has taken this whole mess for Google to finally get off its arse and add proper age gating to Android (the Play Age Signals API).
oblio 1mo ago
> Parent your kids. Ok... > There are countless services to block content you don't want. How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them? > There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want. Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ). > Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Most likely, and the true legal solution is to turn social media into actual media. It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts unless they can prove they have active protection measures. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. Yes, this will probably kill all social media. Burn it all down and let's build something better.
- dizlexic 1mo ago
  > How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them? Not very easily if they're implemented across their networks and devices. > Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ). For ISP you can use your own firewall, install the millions of filters etc. > It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts You're absolutely of base, every media source I'm aware of leverages social media to continue driving traffic to their own sites. Do you have any idea how insane this is when you're dealing with a world of jurisdictions and different definitions of "truth"? You'd rather regulate the platform then the people who abuse it because... i'm assuming you just hate the platform is successful and doesn't behave how you think they should. Is your argument the entire world should make your parenting easier or they should be punished?
Balinares 1mo ago
This assumes a world where one parent can afford to not work and mind the kids full time instead. This also assumes a world where having a parent over their shoulder full time doesn't severely mess up kids. And meanwhile, punishing companies that knowingly cause harm for profit is broadly beneficial and should be a no-brainer. It also doesn't have anything to do with hypocritical age verification laws, which companies like Facebook are actively pushing to shift the responsibility away from themselves. I'd rather we supported the beneficial approach over the anonymity-destroying one, if it's all the same to you.
- Razengan 1mo ago
  > This assumes a world where one parent can afford to not work and mind the kids full time instead. This also assumes a world where having a parent over their shoulder full time doesn't severely mess up kids. So, uhh.. let the government screw people so they can't afford to parent their kids, so they have to let the government spy on everyone so we don't have to parent our kids? And, instead of having a physical entity "over your shoulder" and knowing when you're being watched, kids should be watched 24/7 by invisible entities everywhere?? That WON'T "mess up" kids?? What the fucking hell
b3lvedere 1mo ago
"Just say no!" (Nancy Reagan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
sajithdilshan 1mo ago
I agree that parents have the primary responsibility, but at the same time laws should be created to punish that harm children’s physical and mental health. There’s a reason that laws exists to prohibit selling cigarettes and alcohol to children. But teenagers would still find a way to consume those, however now there’s an incentive for people to not sell those to underage because the consequences would be not worth it. Same should happen with social media that harms children and their mental health.
fireflash38 1mo ago
It's not about kids imo. They're purposely designing things to be as addicting as possible. To me, that is morally wrong, akin to what gambling and "prediction" markets do. Beyond morals, I think it creates deep problems in society, beyond just "who owns the thing recommending" (seriously. If you're not ok with Trump or Kamala Harris controlling what you watch, why are you ok with a nameless exec doing it?)

cineticdaffodil 1mo ago

[dead]

IshKebab 1mo ago

I agree, but also in fairness it has taken this whole mess for Google to finally get off its arse and add proper age gating to Android (the Play Age Signals API).

oblio 1mo ago

> Parent your kids. Ok... > There are countless services to block content you don't want. How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them? > There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want. Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ). > Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Most likely, and the true legal solution is to turn social media into actual media. It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts unless they can prove they have active protection measures. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. Yes, this will probably kill all social media. Burn it all down and let's build something better.

dizlexic 1mo ago
> How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them? Not very easily if they're implemented across their networks and devices. > Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ). For ISP you can use your own firewall, install the millions of filters etc. > It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts You're absolutely of base, every media source I'm aware of leverages social media to continue driving traffic to their own sites. Do you have any idea how insane this is when you're dealing with a world of jurisdictions and different definitions of "truth"? You'd rather regulate the platform then the people who abuse it because... i'm assuming you just hate the platform is successful and doesn't behave how you think they should. Is your argument the entire world should make your parenting easier or they should be punished?

Balinares 1mo ago

This assumes a world where one parent can afford to not work and mind the kids full time instead. This also assumes a world where having a parent over their shoulder full time doesn't severely mess up kids. And meanwhile, punishing companies that knowingly cause harm for profit is broadly beneficial and should be a no-brainer. It also doesn't have anything to do with hypocritical age verification laws, which companies like Facebook are actively pushing to shift the responsibility away from themselves. I'd rather we supported the beneficial approach over the anonymity-destroying one, if it's all the same to you.

Razengan 1mo ago
> This assumes a world where one parent can afford to not work and mind the kids full time instead. This also assumes a world where having a parent over their shoulder full time doesn't severely mess up kids. So, uhh.. let the government screw people so they can't afford to parent their kids, so they have to let the government spy on everyone so we don't have to parent our kids? And, instead of having a physical entity "over your shoulder" and knowing when you're being watched, kids should be watched 24/7 by invisible entities everywhere?? That WON'T "mess up" kids?? What the fucking hell

b3lvedere 1mo ago

"Just say no!" (Nancy Reagan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No

sajithdilshan 1mo ago

I agree that parents have the primary responsibility, but at the same time laws should be created to punish that harm children’s physical and mental health. There’s a reason that laws exists to prohibit selling cigarettes and alcohol to children. But teenagers would still find a way to consume those, however now there’s an incentive for people to not sell those to underage because the consequences would be not worth it. Same should happen with social media that harms children and their mental health.

fireflash38 1mo ago

It's not about kids imo. They're purposely designing things to be as addicting as possible. To me, that is morally wrong, akin to what gambling and "prediction" markets do. Beyond morals, I think it creates deep problems in society, beyond just "who owns the thing recommending" (seriously. If you're not ok with Trump or Kamala Harris controlling what you watch, why are you ok with a nameless exec doing it?)