Are You In Favor Of Not Allowing Social Media For Young People? (1 Viewer)

[Lehigh98]

Absolutely in favor of not allowing people under 16 to access social media.

 

[Gr00vus]

I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world

Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling.

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.

It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.

I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than even when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.

Yep. For example, now that we publicly out anyone who's gone afoul of sexual misconduct laws and have websites advertising where they live, people think there are more sexual predators than ever before. Like they didn't exist until we started legally doxxing them. Thanks internet.

This is tricky too though. I have a good friend who was in a group setting where he was not made aware of a person who had committed horrendous crimes against children and served prison time for it was not clearly identified to the rest of the group. It's a broken world.

I'm not sure how I feel about the info being public - I see good and bad in it. Here, I'm commenting on everyone's ability to handle that information. Some people can take it in and react rationally, others let it make them feel like the world's less secure than it was before this info was being published. A - that's a bad take, they were always there, we just didn't know it, and more importantly B - you can't let this knowledge lead you to lock your kids in the house until they're 18 because you're afraid of the world.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world

Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling.

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.

It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.

I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than even when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.

Yep. For example, now that we publicly out anyone who's gone afoul of sexual misconduct laws and have websites advertising where they live, people think there are more sexual predators than ever before. Like they didn't exist until we started legally doxxing them. Thanks internet.

This is tricky too though. I have a good friend who was in a group setting where he was not made aware of a person who had committed horrendous crimes against children and served prison time for it was not clearly identified to the rest of the group. It's a broken world.

I'm not sure how I feel about the info being public - I see good and bad in it. Here, I'm commenting on everyone's ability to handle that information. Some people can take it in and react rationally, others let it make them feel like the world's less secure than it was before this info was being published. A - that's a bad take, they were always there, we just didn't know it, and more importantly B - you can't let this knowledge lead you to lock your kids in the house until they're 18 because you're afraid of the world.

In this particular case, it was the opposite of locking your kids in the house because of some assumed being "afraid of the world".

On a more broad scale, it's tricky and as you say, good and bad points to it.

 

[massraider]

I caught the 2004 Red Sox title team being honored.

50 year old guys walking in Fenway Park, bring honored after 20 years, and they behaving like 14 year old girls with their phones.

This isn't a kid problem, it's a human problem.

 

[dickey moe]

https://twitter.com/JoHenrich/status/1776374439829025103?t=vbsfp821piG8MVc07_Aeqw&s=19

 

[Rich Conway]

I don't know that I agree with everything here, but it's food for thought.

Social media actually benefits teen mental health

Being online helps teens avoid suicide, self-harm and other risks. Why do media and lawmakers blame it instead?

www.salon.com