• LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I mean there’s a point to be a had. A blanket age restriction is probably the wrong way to go about it, but like, stranger danger doesn’t apply to just the physical world. We teach kids the importance of not talking to strangers, but are completely fine with literal nazi forums. Nobody would let their kid attend a KKK meeting, but yet again, a literal nazi forum is fine?

  • Melt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    As long as the social media’s primary goal is causing addiction and clout chasing behavior, the age limit should be 60

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I used to read Australian news every day. Now I just don’t bother. This government just wastes their time on complete and utter nonsense like this while we’re in the middle of a housing crisis that they’re doing their absolute best to exacerbate.

    I feel like I became dumber just reading this article.

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    Difficult debate. Not sure the traditional media are so much better. I personally think that educating teens to handle whatever medias would be preferable to a blanked ban. It’s going to be interesting to see how it will evolve.

    • boreengreen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      How do we get more mass surveillance? I know! Lets make up a reason why we should implement it. Children!

  • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am becoming convinced that trying to establish a generally applicable age limit is the wrong way to go about these types of things, but instead we must focus on identifying the specific developmental markers which represent each phase and focus on those. We should teach parents to “read” their children’s progress and determine dynamically, based on both general data and individual empirical observations. Some children may not be ready for Social Media even at 16, while others who have more natural social inclinations may be hampered by a delayed introduction of these realities.

    We’ve been treating the subject of children like they’re a bulk product, but they’re just as individually specific as any other human being. They just lack a fully defined brain structure and the contextualisation and understanding which come from life experience, but I doubt anyone could argue they don’t have a personality or cognitive uniqueness.

    Note: I am not talking about the age of consent! That one should always be a thing!

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because nostr and the fediverse care so much about what they think. I’m absolutely certain that every fediverse instance will immediately block any Australians under 16 years old. /s

  • levzzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think 13 is fine, even though it’s not really enforced anywhere. Wouldn’t give phones to toddlers though…

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    At whatever age they want to.

    holy shit why would you deprive kids of (often their only way to have any) social contacts and think you’re the good guys

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      You wanna get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid? Because that’s how you get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid.

      The same parent that handed the kid a device to be on social media can also take the kid out somewhere to socialize with other kids.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ve been in online communities since shortly after my 10th birthday and this has never once been a problem.

        Most of my friends when I was a teenager were people I met online. It was beyond a reasonable doubt good for me to be on the Internet during that time because it was the only place where I fit in, where I could be myself.

        If I ever have kids, I hope they fit in better than I did offline, but if they don’t, there is no way I am going to prevent them from socializing in online communities.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s great. That’s a personal antecdote though. I was online, unsupervised at 14 years old back in the late 90s, and being into anime and furry shit, I definitely had more than a couple people online trying to roleplay sexual shit with me…a fourteen year old kid. Even though my account profiles stated so. Unfettered, unsupervised access is also not the solution. I’m basing my opinion on this on my own experience as well. There are a shitload of predators out there.

          I am not saying a blanket, hamfisted ban is the solution either. This is more complex than being a black and white problem. Where the fuck is everybody’s parents? They should be the ones actively guiding their kid through online spaces, not the government. It was literally a slogan in the 90s to “ask your parents before accessing such and such website” on every ad having to do with the Internet. WTF happened.