Are You In Favor Of Not Allowing Social Media For Young People? (2 Viewers)

[gianmarco]

Where do we draw the line? Child obesity is a problem, due we make it against the law for children under 13 to eat fast food and drink soda?

Let's worry about drawing the line when we get somewhere for a line to be drawn. If there's enough support, then take action.

 

[kutta]

I’m completely opposed. This should fall on parents. When the government starts deciding what we as citizens can and cannot access, we will have much bigger problems. First it’s social media for kids. Then it’s porn for kids. Then it’s porn for adults. Then it’s whatever the far right (or far left) deem inappropriate.

How is this enforced? So this would mean everyone would have to show proof of age in order to access social media? Including adults? What happens when “they” decide to raise the age to 21? What happens when “they” decide social media is just too harmful to society and decide to make it all illegal?

I hate this.

Thanks. Are you ok with the government deciding other things?

Like the Legal age to buy alcohol? Or the Legal age to buy cigarettes?

Yes. I’m fine with that.

First, those are things done outside the home where parents may not be present.
Second, those are proven, physically harmful substances.
Third, none of those have the affect of infringing on citizens’ access to information and data.

What about gambling (online)? What about p0rn?

And, to your last point, I would argue limiting social media is not limiting "access to information and data". Online access != social media.

All should fall on the parents, IMO. I could maybe see gambling because you have to already give ID when registering.

There are filters for phones and computers that parents can install that work very well. Thats how they should get around porn and social media. I believe the people that claim to want to restrict porn for minors really want to restrict it for adults. Requiring age verification before going to xxx.com is surely going to mean less folks going there.

Limiting social media IS limiting access to information and data. Not sure how you can say it isn’t. And even if it wasn’t, the precedent is horrible. Allowing the government to deem what is acceptable for us to view and what isn’t is a really bad idea.

 

[eoMMan]

I think 12 and under is more reasonable.

 

[kutta]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

 

[Max Power]

ETA: You run a more wholesome website than most of the internet. Would you support a law regulating who could use this site? Would you change things if there was an age cutoff?

That's a good question. Like anything, it would be weighing out the good against the bad.

In this case, I'd be ok with a law that didn't allow under 16 year olds on the forum.

Just to play devils advocate here... You'd be ok with a law prohibiting 16 and under on the forum, but would you still support it if the govt/laws made the forum owner/operator liable for minors on the site? i.e. You'd be the one who would have to screen them out?

 

[gianmarco]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

Just a caution about making this political.

That said, a few points to your posts:

1) This isn't asking the government to limit what "we" can view. It's putting an age restriction. I think those are two very different things. I have zero issues with gambling, p0rn, social media etc being out there and available. I do have issues with it being available for children. We have age restrictions for all kinds of things. This is one that I feel should be added to that list. And that's very different than limiting it for everyone.

2. In case you question where I'm coming from, I don't support any kind of book bannings. Or restrictions on cannabis or even other drugs. Zero religious component from me. To me, this is a health issue. And from a health standpoint, I would strongly support something like this. As others have mentioned, I think a lower age is more reasonable, but I do think putting an age restriction makes sense.

3. This doesn't just impact those accessing social media. There are legitimate harms to others through the use of social media by children. And, in a broader sense, harm to the overall community when it affects so many. I view it similar to seatbelt laws. You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt me directly, but as a whole, we are all better when we do it collectively.

4. When I view things like this, I try to consider the harm of taking it away. Saying a 9 year old can't create a TikTok account isn't causing "harm", IMO. We already know there can be work arounds, especially if, as a parent, you REALLY want your kid to have that account, you can help them out. But, setting this restriction will hopefully help others realize the harms we are seeing and at least more will respond by just having their children wait until they are a bit older to partake in social media.

ETA -- And yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of guns. Again, from a health standpoint.

 

[kutta]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

Just a caution about making this political.

That said, a few points to your posts:

1) This isn't asking the government to limit what "we" can view. It's putting an age restriction. I think those are two very different things. I have zero issues with gambling, p0rn, social media etc being out there and available. I do have issues with it being available for children. We have age restrictions for all kinds of things. This is one that I feel should be added to that list. And that's very different than limiting it for everyone.

2. In case you question where I'm coming from, I don't support any kind of book bannings. Or restrictions on cannabis or even other drugs. Zero religious component from me. To me, this is a health issue. And from a health standpoint, I would strongly support something like this. As others have mentioned, I think a lower age is more reasonable, but I do think putting an age restriction makes sense.

3. This doesn't just impact those accessing social media. There are legitimate harms to others through the use of social media by children. And, in a broader sense, harm to the overall community when it affects so many. I view it similar to seatbelt laws. You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt me directly, but as a whole, we are all better when we do it collectively.

4. When I view things like this, I try to consider the harm of taking it away. Saying a 9 year old can't create a TikTok account isn't causing "harm", IMO. We already know there can be work arounds, especially if, as a parent, you REALLY want your kid to have that account, you can help them out. But, setting this restriction will hopefully help others realize the harms we are seeing and at least more will respond by just having their children wait until they are a bit older to partake in social media.

ETA -- And yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of guns. Again, from a health standpoint.

Great post.

Thanks for the political warning. I was just trying to make the point that a lot of the same people supporting unlimited gun ownership are the people who want these kinds of restrictions. And they get the “slippery slope” argument for guns, but not for this.

I get what you are saying. For me it boils down to us allowing the government to make this call. Once that starts, it will never end. They’ll put age restrictions on other things because, hey, we already have it for social media and porn and gambling. What can it hurt?

Just as you say parents can get around it if they want their kids to have it, I say parents can prevent it if they don’t want their kids to have it.

Leave it to the parents and leave the government out of it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just a caution about making this political.

Any of this is not an "affairs of the cities"?

 

[gianmarco]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

Just a caution about making this political.

That said, a few points to your posts:

1) This isn't asking the government to limit what "we" can view. It's putting an age restriction. I think those are two very different things. I have zero issues with gambling, p0rn, social media etc being out there and available. I do have issues with it being available for children. We have age restrictions for all kinds of things. This is one that I feel should be added to that list. And that's very different than limiting it for everyone.

2. In case you question where I'm coming from, I don't support any kind of book bannings. Or restrictions on cannabis or even other drugs. Zero religious component from me. To me, this is a health issue. And from a health standpoint, I would strongly support something like this. As others have mentioned, I think a lower age is more reasonable, but I do think putting an age restriction makes sense.

3. This doesn't just impact those accessing social media. There are legitimate harms to others through the use of social media by children. And, in a broader sense, harm to the overall community when it affects so many. I view it similar to seatbelt laws. You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt me directly, but as a whole, we are all better when we do it collectively.

4. When I view things like this, I try to consider the harm of taking it away. Saying a 9 year old can't create a TikTok account isn't causing "harm", IMO. We already know there can be work arounds, especially if, as a parent, you REALLY want your kid to have that account, you can help them out. But, setting this restriction will hopefully help others realize the harms we are seeing and at least more will respond by just having their children wait until they are a bit older to partake in social media.

ETA -- And yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of guns. Again, from a health standpoint.

Great post.

Thanks for the political warning. I was just trying to make the point that a lot of the same people supporting unlimited gun ownership are the people who want these kinds of restrictions. And they get the “slippery slope” argument for guns, but not for this.

I get what you are saying. For me it boils down to us allowing the government to make this call. Once that starts, it will never end. They’ll put age restrictions on other things because, hey, we already have it for social media and porn and gambling. What can it hurt?

Just as you say parents can get around it if they want their kids to have it, I say parents can prevent it if they don’t want their kids to have it.

Leave it to the parents and leave the government out of it.

To your bolded, we got to that point long ago. The government already limits LOTS of things, not all that I agree with. This isn't crossing some line that wasn't already crossed a long time ago.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Is there data/studies that show why 16 is the appropriate age for being able to use social media? I get that younger = not good for them, but why 16? Is it a result of compromise?

I'm on the side of letting parents decide, not the government, but I'm open to data driven reasoning. We set age restrictions for driving, alcohol and tobacco, etc.

Posted this in the other thread. Still a bit on the fence, but it's hard for me to be moved from "I'll decide for my kid, you do you." I get that social media harms kids though, thus on the fence. It's a tough one.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I’m completely opposed. This should fall on parents. When the government starts deciding what we as citizens can and cannot access, we will have much bigger problems. First it’s social media for kids. Then it’s porn for kids. Then it’s porn for adults. Then it’s whatever the far right (or far left) deem inappropriate.

How is this enforced? So this would mean everyone would have to show proof of age in order to access social media? Including adults? What happens when “they” decide to raise the age to 21? What happens when “they” decide social media is just too harmful to society and decide to make it all illegal?

I hate this.

Pardon?

 

[kutta]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

Just a caution about making this political.

That said, a few points to your posts:

1) This isn't asking the government to limit what "we" can view. It's putting an age restriction. I think those are two very different things. I have zero issues with gambling, p0rn, social media etc being out there and available. I do have issues with it being available for children. We have age restrictions for all kinds of things. This is one that I feel should be added to that list. And that's very different than limiting it for everyone.

2. In case you question where I'm coming from, I don't support any kind of book bannings. Or restrictions on cannabis or even other drugs. Zero religious component from me. To me, this is a health issue. And from a health standpoint, I would strongly support something like this. As others have mentioned, I think a lower age is more reasonable, but I do think putting an age restriction makes sense.

3. This doesn't just impact those accessing social media. There are legitimate harms to others through the use of social media by children. And, in a broader sense, harm to the overall community when it affects so many. I view it similar to seatbelt laws. You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt me directly, but as a whole, we are all better when we do it collectively.

4. When I view things like this, I try to consider the harm of taking it away. Saying a 9 year old can't create a TikTok account isn't causing "harm", IMO. We already know there can be work arounds, especially if, as a parent, you REALLY want your kid to have that account, you can help them out. But, setting this restriction will hopefully help others realize the harms we are seeing and at least more will respond by just having their children wait until they are a bit older to partake in social media.

ETA -- And yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of guns. Again, from a health standpoint.

Great post.

Thanks for the political warning. I was just trying to make the point that a lot of the same people supporting unlimited gun ownership are the people who want these kinds of restrictions. And they get the “slippery slope” argument for guns, but not for this.

I get what you are saying. For me it boils down to us allowing the government to make this call. Once that starts, it will never end. They’ll put age restrictions on other things because, hey, we already have it for social media and porn and gambling. What can it hurt?

Just as you say parents can get around it if they want their kids to have it, I say parents can prevent it if they don’t want their kids to have it.

Leave it to the parents and leave the government out of it.

To your bolded, we got to that point long ago. The government already limits LOTS of things, not all that I agree with. This isn't crossing some line that wasn't already crossed a long time ago.

But not online. And not things so mainstream as social media.

 

[kutta]

I’m completely opposed. This should fall on parents. When the government starts deciding what we as citizens can and cannot access, we will have much bigger problems. First it’s social media for kids. Then it’s porn for kids. Then it’s porn for adults. Then it’s whatever the far right (or far left) deem inappropriate.

How is this enforced? So this would mean everyone would have to show proof of age in order to access social media? Including adults? What happens when “they” decide to raise the age to 21? What happens when “they” decide social media is just too harmful to society and decide to make it all illegal?

I hate this.

Pardon?

OK, that didn’t come out right.

I don’t think the government should be limiting access to online content based on age.

 

[B Maverick]

Is Social Media in the same category as smoking, p0rn, alcohol?
Ort the same as driving, voting, enlisting?
Or is it more like sex where certain parts are limited by the government and some aren't.

 

[Gr00vus]

As I said in the other thread, I don't think it's practically enforceable through technology or legislation to begin with, and will come with a lot of negative side effects if we attempt to handle things that way.

Beyond that, it's apparent to me that many adults can't handle social media and it's harmful to them and society at large in many ways - can we ban it for everyone? Why just beneath a certain age? Do we have peer reviewed clinical studies, research, analysis showing the negative impacts are greater at or below a certain age than others? Or are we just legislating based on feelings and subjective opinions?

Note: My son is currently 14 years old, I am directly engaged in this issue.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes. And I'm also favor of not allowing people 16 and older. It's an absolute scourge.

I'm only sort of kidding.

 

[Jayrod]

What’s really weird to me is that it’s usually the right who pushes these kinds of things. Yet in the same breath they talk about personal liberties and freedoms. I truly don’t understand why the right continually wants MORE government involvement in certain issues while while saying parents and individuals are responsible for others.

Hey, I have a good idea if we are concerned about our society. Let’s get rid of everyone’s guns.

Thanks for the political warning. I was just trying to make the point that a lot of the same people supporting unlimited gun ownership are the people who want these kinds of restrictions. And they get the “slippery slope” argument for guns, but not for this.

I get what you are saying. For me it boils down to us allowing the government to make this call. Once that starts, it will never end. They’ll put age restrictions on other things because, hey, we already have it for social media and porn and gambling. What can it hurt?

Just as you say parents can get around it if they want their kids to have it, I say parents can prevent it if they don’t want their kids to have it.

Leave it to the parents and leave the government out of it.

Oh come on. You know it was a "gotcha" attempt at conservatives and not a very thinly veiled one at that.

And are you saying that there should be no age restrictions on anything? Because it really seems like that is what you are advocating. "Slippery slope" and all.

 

[Jayrod]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

 

[Gr00vus]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

I kind of think this is right. I'd love for a ban to happen - as a practical matter it's probably not possible.

Probably the best we can do is to educate parents on just how damaging the product is to their kids. I think at this point the majority of people think, "What's the big deal?"

 

[gianmarco]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

I kind of think this is right. I'd love for a ban to happen - as a practical matter it's probably not possible.

Probably the best we can do is to educate parents on just how damaging the product is to their kids. I think at this point the majority of people think, "What's the big deal?"

Can 10 year olds gamble online right now? Aren't there online age restrictions to preventing it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

I kind of think this is right. I'd love for a ban to happen - as a practical matter it's probably not possible.

Probably the best we can do is to educate parents on just how damaging the product is to their kids. I think at this point the majority of people think, "What's the big deal?"

Can 10 year olds gamble online right now? Aren't there online age restrictions to preventing it?

 

[Rich Conway]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

While it's true that "just because it's easy to circumvent the language filter doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have a language filter", the ease of circumvention should be considered when we attempt to calculate the cost and benefit of any given proposal. Specifically, if the language filter is trivial to circumvent, then the benefit of the proposal probably isn't as great as it is purported to be.

That said, if the cost is nil or miniscule, or there are other, ancillary benefits, those benefits may still outweigh the costs.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

I kind of think this is right. I'd love for a ban to happen - as a practical matter it's probably not possible.

Probably the best we can do is to educate parents on just how damaging the product is to their kids. I think at this point the majority of people think, "What's the big deal?"

Can 10 year olds gamble online right now? Aren't there online age restrictions to preventing it?

"can it be done" is only minimally a technical question. What hurdles someone that wants to make an online bet will go over is not necessarily the same as the hurdles that one that wants to interact with a social media setting. In addition, though I'm not very strong on this one the information that should be shared with a service that makes it money on the service seems to be different than the information that should be shared with a service where the real service is to collect information. (I'm not strong on this because I assume the online betting sites are doing the same.) And some of those hurdles involve real risk in terms of such things as identity theft.

 

[Hastur]

Didn't know Whatsapp was that big. Also surprised Discord is so low.

The top 23 social media apps and platforms for 2024

MAU – Monthly Average User

1. Facebook — 3.05 billion MAUs
2. WhatsApp — 2.78 billion MAUs
3. YouTube — 2.49 billion MAUs
4. Instagram — 2.04 billion MAUs
5. WeChat — 1.32 billion MAUs
6. TikTok — 1.22 billion MAUs
7. Telegram — 800 million MAUs
8. Snapchat — 750 million MAUs
9. Kuaishou — 673 million MAUs
10. Sina Weibo — 599 million MAUs
11. QQ — 571 million MAUs
12. QQ — 558 million MAUs
13. X (formerly Twitter) — 550 million MAUs
14. Pinterest — 465 million MAUs
15. Reddit — 430 million MAUs
16. LinkedIn — 424 million MAUs
17. Quora — 300 million MAUs
18. Discord — 154 million MAUs
19. Twitch — 140 million MAUs
20. Tumblr — 135 million MAUs
21. Threads by Instagram — 100 million
22. Mastodon — 1.7 million MAUs

 

[Skipdog77]

There's plenty of adults who shouldn't be allowed to have social media. Can we restrict them as well?

 

[NewlyRetired]

Posted this in the other thread. Still a bit on the fence, but it's hard for me to be moved from "I'll decide for my kid, you do you." I get that social media harms kids though, thus on the fence. It's a tough one.

I agree it is a tough one to crack.

There is a tiny bit of a "drunk driving" issue here as well, where the drunk driver is not just a harm to himself but to others and there fore needs to be protected against.

One parent may be very diligent in helping their child online and in social media and teaching them what should be said and how to say it, but there is almost nothing a parent can do to stop a cyber bully attack. Once that door is opened, you can't close it and most of the damage is already done to the child.

And those bully attacks come from other kids whose parents did not care enough to teach or handle or monitor them.

So in the "I'll decide for my kid, you decide for yours" stance, your kid can get hurt even if they are using the social media correctly.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Also, I read this here and other places today...but can we dispense with the "they'll circumvent and get access to it anyway" argument?

Seriously think about it for one second. Just because someone will work around something doesn't mean that safeguard doesn't need to be in place. I don't even fully understand that argument from any sort of logical standpoint. Of course people will circumvent the rules. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules.

No, because the cost that we should endure should be more than offset by the benefit achieved. Are there measures that are work the cost

 

[titusbramble]

I'm in favour of parents doing their job

 

[gianmarco]

Posted this in the other thread. Still a bit on the fence, but it's hard for me to be moved from "I'll decide for my kid, you do you." I get that social media harms kids though, thus on the fence. It's a tough one.

I agree it is a tough one to crack.

There is a tiny bit of a "drunk driving" issue here as well, where the drunk driver is not just a harm to himself but to others and there fore needs to be protected against.

One parent may be very diligent in helping their child online and in social media and teaching them what should be said and how to say it, but there is almost nothing a parent can do to stop a cyber bully attack. Once that door is opened, you can't close it and most of the damage is already done to the child.

And those bully attacks come from other kids whose parents did not care enough to teach or handle or monitor them.

So in the "I'll decide for my kid, you decide for yours" stance, your kid can get hurt even if they are using the social media correctly.

And this, unfortunately, is all too common.

Overall, about 30% of the teens we have surveyed over the last twelve studies have told us that they have been cyberbullied at some point in their lifetimes. About 13% said they were cyberbullied in the 30 days preceding the survey. Similarly, about 15% of those who we surveyed admitted that they had cyberbullied others at some point in their lifetimes (about 6% in the most recent 30 days). In 2020 we surveyed 1,034 tweens (9-12 year-olds) across the United States and found that about 15% of them had been cyberbullied at some point in their lifetimes

 

[gianmarco]

And, to take it another step further, kids that are cyberbullied have increased suicidal thoughts and attempts.

The participants who experienced cyberbullying were more than 4 times as likely to report thoughts of suicide and attempts as those who didn’t. This association diminished but remained significant when the researchers adjusted for other factors known to affect thoughts of suicide and attempts. These include family conflict, racial discrimination, parental monitoring, and being supported at school.

The researchers also found that experiencing cyberbullying increased the risk of thoughts of suicide and attempts independent of in-person bullying.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There is a tiny bit of a "drunk driving" issue here as well, where the drunk driver is not just a harm to himself but to others and there fore needs to be protected against.

Would we as a society be willing to put breathalyzers on every car such that it won't start if you cannot find someone to blow into it that isn't over whatever limit?

I think the answer is

no - it is too intrusive​

no - it is too easy to circumvent​

no - it won't provide the benefit that offsets the costs​

​

While intuitively I think this is analogous to this discussion, I'm not really certain about how unintrusive this could be implemented to get some benefit. That is I agree with those that say it depends on the implementation.

 

[Jayrod]

No we can't dispense with it. The whole point is to try to legislate age based restrictions on access to technological platforms and services provided through those platforms. If it's not technologically feasible to implement effective controls enforcing the restrictions, the entire conversation is a waste of time.

I kind of think this is right. I'd love for a ban to happen - as a practical matter it's probably not possible.

Probably the best we can do is to educate parents on just how damaging the product is to their kids. I think at this point the majority of people think, "What's the big deal?"

While it's true that "just because it's easy to circumvent the language filter doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have a language filter", the ease of circumvention should be considered when we attempt to calculate the cost and benefit of any given proposal. Specifically, if the language filter is trivial to circumvent, then the benefit of the proposal probably isn't as great as it is purported to be.

That said, if the cost is nil or miniscule, or there are other, ancillary benefits, those benefits may still outweigh the costs.

No, because the cost that we should endure should be more than offset by the benefit achieved. Are there measures that are work the cost

The cost/benefit or feasibility analysis is NOT AT ALL what I'm talking about.

 

[Jayrod]

pRon has never been restricted, do you think because they put the nudie mags behind a black tint divider in Barnes and Noble that kids can't grab it and look at it?

This is the mindset I was talking about. Saw it earlier today in another thread as well.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The cost/benefit or feasibility analysis is NOT AT ALL what I'm talking about.

If what you are talking about is that "it is too easily circumvented" is the beginning and end of the conversation and the only argument then I, and I assume we agree. But how easy it is to circumvent is a big part of what benefit might be provided so the argument in the larger context is more than valid.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes. And I'm also favor of not allowing people 16 and older. It's an absolute scourge.

I'm only sort of kidding.

This is hardly a novel observation on my part, but social media makes it too easy for people on the fringes of society to find one another and drift away, when they ought to be moving closer to the rest of us. I think a lot of political extremism we see these days is directly attributable to that, but let's not go there. Adults who are prone to anger, anxiety, and other negative emotions get together and whip one another up or drive one another into an emotional crater.

We see that phenomenon around here to a very small degree, and we're middle-aged men who were out of high school before any of this stuff. And a discussion forum doesn't really lend itself to serious social dysfunction the way places like Facebook and Twitter for example, do. Now put yourself in the place of a kid who's going through a rough spot (what kid doesn't?), and nobody hangs out in person anyway because of screens, so you form some parasocial relationship with some YouTuber . . .

As usual, we should resist monocausal explanations for any social phenomenon. But there seems to be an emerging consensus that social media is the asbestos of mental health for adults. Our brains are formed. So how can this possibly not be harmful for children and teens?

 

[Gr00vus]

Posted this in the other thread. Still a bit on the fence, but it's hard for me to be moved from "I'll decide for my kid, you do you." I get that social media harms kids though, thus on the fence. It's a tough one.

I agree it is a tough one to crack.

There is a tiny bit of a "drunk driving" issue here as well, where the drunk driver is not just a harm to himself but to others and there fore needs to be protected against.

One parent may be very diligent in helping their child online and in social media and teaching them what should be said and how to say it, but there is almost nothing a parent can do to stop a cyber bully attack. Once that door is opened, you can't close it and most of the damage is already done to the child.

And those bully attacks come from other kids whose parents did not care enough to teach or handle or monitor them.

So in the "I'll decide for my kid, you decide for yours" stance, your kid can get hurt even if they are using the social media correctly.

This is true. My approach, as a parent, is to stay in touch with my kid, instill confidence in them, good judgement, empathy, etc. to the fullest extent I can. Do my best to make sure my kid understands bullying is not acceptable behavior and why, and that they may be subjected to bullying as well, and how to deal with it. I can't control other people, I can try to prep my kid for what they may run into out there. That's what I'm committed to. I don't need legislation to do it, and I don't expect legislation to do it for me for every possible negative consequence out there.

 

[dkp993]

Fully in favor of it. At a complete loss on how to do it effectively.

 

[Joe Bryant]

More on the "Collective problems require collective action" thought.

On the podcast, the author talked about a parent that relayed this.

The parent asked her daughter if she thought it would be a good idea if she were not allowed to access social media.

The daughter's reply was telling. "Would my friends also not be allowed to have it?"

Mom said "yes".

Daughter than said yes, she'd prefer no social media if it applied to everyone.

What do you think is telling about this?

What the daughter said. That kids would give up social media if their friends would too.

 

[Joe Bryant]

ETA: You run a more wholesome website than most of the internet. Would you support a law regulating who could use this site? Would you change things if there was an age cutoff?

That's a good question. Like anything, it would be weighing out the good against the bad.

In this case, I'd be ok with a law that didn't allow under 16 year olds on the forum.

Just to play devils advocate here... You'd be ok with a law prohibiting 16 and under on the forum, but would you still support it if the govt/laws made the forum owner/operator liable for minors on the site? i.e. You'd be the one who would have to screen them out?

Yes. It would be hypocritical of me not to.

We have to accept the only way this will ever work is if the responsibility is mainly on the site or company that is benefitting from the person being there.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

One of the things the author is proposing is not allowing people under 16 to access social media. He thinks the effects are so damaging for young people that there should be an age requirement. There currently is a flimsy requirement now of 13 years but it's not observed. He's suggesting a real limit like gambling sites have.

As posted in the other thread I don't use sports book sites so I'm ignorant of the steps involved in making a bet. Knowledge of that could push me into agreement or push me more towards my intuitive idea that this this more than the masses will be willing to endure to access social media. (I'm assuming we cannot dictate what the masses shall endure.)

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm in favour of parents doing their job

Can you elaborate on specifically what this looks like?

For instance, does a 15 year old get to have their phone with them all night?

 

[Joe Bryant]

One of the things the author is proposing is not allowing people under 16 to access social media. He thinks the effects are so damaging for young people that there should be an age requirement. There currently is a flimsy requirement now of 13 years but it's not observed. He's suggesting a real limit like gambling sites have.

As posted in the other thread I don't use sports book sites so I'm ignorant of the steps involved in making a bet. Knowledge of that could push me into agreement or push me more towards my intuitive idea that this this more than the masses will be willing to endure to access social media. (I'm assuming we cannot dictate what the masses shall endure.)

Thanks. I think the main point is sports book sites have solved this problem so it's clean and easy. If you're of age, you can participate. They have even gone a step further and have the responsibility of determining that you're in a legal state.

The "can they do this smoothly?" question has been solved.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What the daughter said. That kids would give up social media if their friends would too.

I don't think that the quote can be used to exprolate such a conclusion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What the daughter said. That kids would give up social media if their friends would too.

I don't think that the quote can be used to exprolate such a conclusion.

We'll disagree there then. That was also the opinion of the mother of the daughter. I'd suggest listening to the podcast for more context. It's toward the end.

 

[rockaction]

I'm concerned that the enforcement mechanism will require adults to prove that they're 16+ to access the internet and certain websites. I don't like the idea of having to produce ID that can leave a trail of where I've been on the internet and when.

I think that divulges too much information about the individual and tempts governments to track and use information handed over by the user for simply being on the internet. Now, the NSA might be doing this anyway, and that's another question for another time, but why let any local, state, or federal government have access to that information?

I know people see the problems with young people and social media, but my honest assessment of the way our government is trending mixed with the intolerance both sides of the political horseshoe are displaying—especially in the elite parts of our younger generations—is leading me to believe that the more unregistered, unregulated things that are checks on government the better.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm concerned that the enforcement mechanism will require adults to prove that they're 16+ to access the internet and certain websites. I don't like the idea of having to produce ID that can leave a trail of where I've been on the internet and when.

That's the elephant in the room.

 

[belljr]

What the daughter said. That kids would give up social media if their friends would too.

I don't think that the quote can be used to exprolate such a conclusion.

We'll disagree there then. That was also the opinion of the mother of the daughter. I'd suggest listening to the podcast for more context. It's toward the end.

Sure but if the mother said, I want you to only eat salads, the kid would say ok if all her friends were too

 

[B Maverick]

I'm in favour of parents doing their job

Can you elaborate on specifically what this looks like?

For instance, does a 15 year get to have their phone with them all night?

I won't speak for Titus, but for me here are some of the things we did as part of our teen getting a phone...

We have the right to ask for her phone and check it anytime we want. Who is she texting, what apps does she have? etc.
Any social media she wants has to be approved and set up with properly restricting access to only certain people (some family, some friends)
Talking to her about the dangers of the internet, social media and people.
Trusting her but also checking in with her about it. Reminders.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks. I think the main point is sports book sites have solved this problem so it's clean and easy. If you're of age, you can participate. They have even gone a step further and have the responsibility of determining that you're in a legal state.

The "can they do this smoothly?" question has been solved.

How? You're just asserting it is a fact, not demonstrating it as so.

If this site is accurate

The steps involved in creating accounts may differ from site-to-site. Most online sportsbooks require the following: Name, Address, Password, Mobile Phone Number, Email Address (typically becomes your username), and Date of Birth. Once all your demographic information has been submitted, your account is made.

Then I don't think anything is solved. The next step might be some help...

3. Make a Deposit
When making a deposit, sportsbooks may include many of the following options: Credit or Debit Card, Play+, Prepaid Card (specific to the site), PayPal, ACH (eCheck), Online Bank Transfer, Wire Transfer, PayNearMe, or a check.

...but only some and not really applicable to social media.

For it to be "solved" there has to be more, what is it?