In principle, banning kids from social media is a good thing. You still have to worry about the teachers, but not giving every freak on the planet access to try to groom your kids should be common sense.
The real problem is the expectation that adults will be compelled to prove they're not children by exposing their identities, which will be a tool to suppress and punish dissent.
Pretty much this. It is pretty much indisputable that social media is heavily detrimental to child development. But, this type of thing will also result in greatly increased govt monitoring of people online, and corresponding decreases in anonymity.
You still have to worry about the teachers, but not giving every freak on the planet access to try to groom your kids should be common sense.
Although social media IS awful for children, I'm concerned that this an attempt to isolate them from increasingly uncensored platforms so there's nobody to counter said teachers, or government propaganda.
Countering said propaganda is a (sadly necessary) job for the parents of course, but many don't do a terrific job of that, and a lot can go on that parents don't even know about.
I think we should assume that 13 yr olds will continue to use social media. Whatever they (the government) do has an alternate purpose. Like the other guys said, in this case, probably tracking adults. What you say is also the point because they want to censor and promote degeneracy and then expose the children.
We (in Australia) already had something along those lines, during Covid, with "check in" apps. Especially in South Australia, where those on lockdown were actively monitored, and required to answer random calls from the state gestapo if their location tracking was ever turned off...
For the companies, this is a massive liability problem too. Either they put in more checks (and have to guard the info to much higher standard based on local laws) or they risk getting fucked when someone lies (lying? on the internet? who would do that?).
I'm not sure this will end well either way, and of course it's a retarded lefty government pushing it.
Then that means adults will also be discouraged from using social media to rot their brains if they want to avoid all of the surveillance. Sounds like a "don't threaten me with a good time" situation to me.
I'm more than happy to see people use social media less and less, but doing so via the never ending government over-reach (in this case via unilateral Digital ID laws that will follow to enforce this) isn't the win you think it is. But sure, give more power to the government. I look forward to you bitching about how the government has too much power in the next breath.
Even if you assume that the government actually does have the best of intentions here like a delusional statist would, how many times has the best intentions of the government actually worked out as supposedly intended? This is how the government always grows itself. It identifies a problem, and it doesn't matter if it's actually a problem or a manufactured problem, but it's a problem that the public can fear. And then they use that fear to usher in authoritarian and totalitarian laws. Censorship, disarmament and general regulations are built upon it.
You're so focused on the carrot that you're ignoring the stick that inherently comes with it.
In principle, banning kids from social media is a good thing. You still have to worry about the teachers, but not giving every freak on the planet access to try to groom your kids should be common sense.
The real problem is the expectation that adults will be compelled to prove they're not children by exposing their identities, which will be a tool to suppress and punish dissent.
Pretty much this. It is pretty much indisputable that social media is heavily detrimental to child development. But, this type of thing will also result in greatly increased govt monitoring of people online, and corresponding decreases in anonymity.
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?"
Same old playbook for "the greater good." All Common Wealth countries (AUS, NZ, CAN, UK) are free-range prisons.
So is the US. We enjoy greater rights here, but if you exercising them ever became a serious threat to the government they would strip them away.
A gilded cage is still a cage.
Nobody is kicking in my door for posting memes. I can pray in public and say outright that immigrants are a problem without being arrested.
I'd say America remains a much, much better nation than most. Enough that those immigrants are willing to risk their lives to come here.
Although social media IS awful for children, I'm concerned that this an attempt to isolate them from increasingly uncensored platforms so there's nobody to counter said teachers, or government propaganda.
Countering said propaganda is a (sadly necessary) job for the parents of course, but many don't do a terrific job of that, and a lot can go on that parents don't even know about.
I'm a skeptic to a fault, but...
I think we should assume that 13 yr olds will continue to use social media. Whatever they (the government) do has an alternate purpose. Like the other guys said, in this case, probably tracking adults. What you say is also the point because they want to censor and promote degeneracy and then expose the children.
We (in Australia) already had something along those lines, during Covid, with "check in" apps. Especially in South Australia, where those on lockdown were actively monitored, and required to answer random calls from the state gestapo if their location tracking was ever turned off...
Covid was a dry run for all of this...
For the companies, this is a massive liability problem too. Either they put in more checks (and have to guard the info to much higher standard based on local laws) or they risk getting fucked when someone lies (lying? on the internet? who would do that?).
I'm not sure this will end well either way, and of course it's a retarded lefty government pushing it.
Then that means adults will also be discouraged from using social media to rot their brains if they want to avoid all of the surveillance. Sounds like a "don't threaten me with a good time" situation to me.
Ah yes, the ends justify the means.
I'm more than happy to see people use social media less and less, but doing so via the never ending government over-reach (in this case via unilateral Digital ID laws that will follow to enforce this) isn't the win you think it is. But sure, give more power to the government. I look forward to you bitching about how the government has too much power in the next breath.
Even if you assume that the government actually does have the best of intentions here like a delusional statist would, how many times has the best intentions of the government actually worked out as supposedly intended? This is how the government always grows itself. It identifies a problem, and it doesn't matter if it's actually a problem or a manufactured problem, but it's a problem that the public can fear. And then they use that fear to usher in authoritarian and totalitarian laws. Censorship, disarmament and general regulations are built upon it.
You're so focused on the carrot that you're ignoring the stick that inherently comes with it.