shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
on 07 Nov 07:44
nextcollapse
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
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
on 07 Nov 14:47
collapse
I imagine the australian government is going to try and get us to register to use the internet, can’t wait, so exciting.
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.
RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 10:37
collapse
Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.
Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.
Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe.
And life, in general, is filled with bullies.
RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 10:44
collapse
No, bullying isn’t the only danger. Addiction is another and that’s just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.
Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids?
I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.
RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 10:55
collapse
Good default, I’m of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn’t enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.
Sugar isn’t restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there’s a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.
The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…
RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 15:53
collapse
I don’t know about addictiveness but sugar isn’t as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don’t get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren’t taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.
latenightnoir@lemmy.world
on 07 Nov 07:59
nextcollapse
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!
Yeah, same with sugar, cigarettes and alcohol. Give these children what they want.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 16:37
collapse
Cigarettes and alcohol are proven cancerous, physically addictive, etc.
I don’t think legislation should be based on mental gymnastics.
TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
on 07 Nov 13:05
nextcollapse
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
on 07 Nov 13:23
nextcollapse
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
on 07 Nov 16:46
collapse
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.
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
on 07 Nov 14:42
nextcollapse
Satanic Panic but this time about pedophiles.
These laws will be used to restrict information, not to protect anyway, don’t delude youraelf.
TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
on 07 Nov 14:46
collapse
I don't care about the laws, I don't think parents should be allowing access to social media to their five year olds. Preteens maybe, with heavy supervision, yeah that's reasonable, but not toddlers for fuck's sake.
The law can go fuck itself, sure, but parents need to step the fuck up in this day and age. There is no reason for a 1st grader to be posting to X/FB/whatever. They should be playing Legos, riding bikes, and digging holes in the playground dirt.
Good luck arguing it here. I wonder how many here are 16 or younger, or close enough to that age where they grew up with the technology constantly in their face and couldn’t POSSIBLY imagine having lived without it.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 16:38
collapse
Pretty sure you get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid by going to church.
When they gonna ban church for kids under 16?
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Nov 16:36
collapse
The “good guys” gotta ensure “good thinking” to do more gooder! \s
RobotZap10000@feddit.nl
on 07 Nov 09:07
nextcollapse
Good luck to them on ever enforcing that without even more mass surveillance
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.
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
on 07 Nov 14:39
collapse
100% albanese has some cushy job on a board linen up for when he loses to the potato man. Its all bread crumbs and spectacle
give another billion to the arms dealers albo, ‘department of defence’ lol, fucking disgrace
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?
threaded - newest
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
I imagine the australian government is going to try and get us to register to use the internet, can’t wait, so exciting.
Congrats you just realised the mygov ID is being slowly but surely pushed towards being mandatory for access to any online services.
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.
Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.
Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.
Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe. And life, in general, is filled with bullies.
No, bullying isn’t the only danger. Addiction is another and that’s just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.
Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids? I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.
Good default, I’m of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn’t enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.
Sugar isn’t restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there’s a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.
The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…
I don’t know about addictiveness but sugar isn’t as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don’t get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren’t taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.
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!
You’re posting a lot for a one day account.
Yes?
I’m just saying
The non-stop Lemmy grind is one hell of a drug huh
Well you’re one to talk
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
Yeah, same with sugar, cigarettes and alcohol. Give these children what they want.
Cigarettes and alcohol are proven cancerous, physically addictive, etc.
I don’t think legislation should be based on mental gymnastics.
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.
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.
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.
Satanic Panic but this time about pedophiles.
These laws will be used to restrict information, not to protect anyway, don’t delude youraelf.
I don't care about the laws, I don't think parents should be allowing access to social media to their five year olds. Preteens maybe, with heavy supervision, yeah that's reasonable, but not toddlers for fuck's sake.
The law can go fuck itself, sure, but parents need to step the fuck up in this day and age. There is no reason for a 1st grader to be posting to X/FB/whatever. They should be playing Legos, riding bikes, and digging holes in the playground dirt.
Good luck arguing it here. I wonder how many here are 16 or younger, or close enough to that age where they grew up with the technology constantly in their face and couldn’t POSSIBLY imagine having lived without it.
Pretty sure you get a kiddy diddler messing with your kid by going to church.
When they gonna ban church for kids under 16?
The “good guys” gotta ensure “good thinking” to do more gooder! \s
Good luck to them on ever enforcing that without even more mass surveillance
How do we get more mass surveillance? I know! Lets make up a reason why we should implement it. Children!
I think 13 is fine, even though it’s not really enforced anywhere. Wouldn’t give phones to toddlers though…
As long as the social media’s primary goal is causing addiction and clout chasing behavior, the age limit should be 60
my father (62) is addicted to social media and it’s awful
.
Ok boomer.
Ok child.
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.
100% albanese has some cushy job on a board linen up for when he loses to the potato man. Its all bread crumbs and spectacle
give another billion to the arms dealers albo, ‘department of defence’ lol, fucking disgrace
The children yearn for the forums
Good luck enforcing it numnuts.
Imagine the most disgusting people on the planet violently imposing their “morality” on your kids.
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?