Meta is supporting proposals to establish a common Digital Majority Age across EU member states, whereby parents need to approve their younger teens' access to digital services, including social media.
I’ve been thinking about it and here’s my proposal:
total ban on hosting/streaming videos with kids below 16. Anyone uploading content with kids is immediately banned. Platforms hosting content with kids are prosecuted.
treat mobile phones like cigarettes. Parents giving phones to children < 16 are fined. If you want to track your kid get him a smart watch.
a heavy handed approach, but I don’t see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.
slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that’s probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.
private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.
hey people, this could work!
and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.
that does not seem to be right. 21 is way too high, and also this would effectively be a universal restraining order kids and not-so-kids, and adults. I don’t want to go to jail just because of walking by a kid or a young adult, let alone converse with them, only sick people would actually endorse this.
but also pagers only do one way communication, don’t they? that is worthless here. the goal is not to just put a GPS tracker to kids, but to give them a simple communication device.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
Cell phone bans are now common in schools. More and more research shows phones are bad for development.
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
The question is not whether you can find one kind of video/streaming that is exploitative but whether all of them are. Is it exploitative to share video from a spelling bee competition? Is it exploitative to share a school theater video? If not, only ban the things that are.
Whether to give phones to children and how is a parents decision. As for the research, it is the same as above. Clearly these issues did not exist with early smartphones. So it’s not the phones, it something on them. My money is on social media and the “idle” games. Parents have the option to prevent installation of those.
You don’t ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombs. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.
You don’t ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombs. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.
Ok, I see your point. You think that videos or random kids dancing on TikTok or kids you don’t know doing theater are somehow valuable are should be protected. Personally I don’t know who enjoys those videos and I think banning all of them achieves the desired goal without sacrificing anything of value. I thought that only other kids watch those videos and that everything about it is harmful. It basically trains easy to influence kids to fight for internet points, teaches the the wrong values and promotes bullying. You clearly think that having kids on TikToc have some benefits. We’re not going to agree about this.
As for phones, if we have science proving that they are harmful to kids I don’t see how they are different from cigarettes or alcohol. Then again, we let parents fuck up their kids in many different ways so I guess you’re right here and we should leave it to them. Their are free to take care of their children if they want to and we can’t force everyone to be a good parent anyway.
No. I believe that what isn’t harmful shouldn’t be banned. You don’t get to decide what is valuable or enjoyable to other people. If it does not harm someone, it should be allowed. We are not robots that are programmed to value things equally. What is insignificant to you can be important to others.
I thought that only other kids watch those videos and that everything about it is harmful. It basically trains easy to influence kids to fight for internet points
You can make this point about almost any entertainment for children. Having pretty clothes. Having fancy toys. Playing videogames. Playing sports.
Parent your children properly if you have any instead of trying to put them into bubble wrap.
That is not to say there are not specific things that are too harmful, but we won’t ban everything because maybe, some of it it could influence kids badly.
As for phones, if we have science proving that they are harmful to kids I don’t see how they are different from cigarettes or alcohol.
Show me research that show a dumb phone only making calls is harmful and I will admit you are right. Otherwise, it is not phones that are harmful, it is something specific on them. I have no issue regulating apps harmful to kids, like lootboxes, idle games, login rewards, etc. But it is not about phones.
I’ve been thinking about it and here’s my proposal:
Who’s with me?
a heavy handed approach, but I don’t see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.
slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that’s probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.
private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.
hey people, this could work!
and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.
Pagers. Kids under 21 can only get pagers.
They get within two meters of a smartphone, both kid, parents, and whoever owns the smartphone go straight to jail.
that does not seem to be right. 21 is way too high, and also this would effectively be a universal restraining order kids and not-so-kids, and adults. I don’t want to go to jail just because of walking by a kid or a young adult, let alone converse with them, only sick people would actually endorse this.
but also pagers only do one way communication, don’t they? that is worthless here. the goal is not to just put a GPS tracker to kids, but to give them a simple communication device.
No. I want freedom, not this BS
No one.
I would be surprised if majority of people couldn’t live without watching kids on youtube but who knows, maybe you’re right.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
Cell phone bans are now common in schools. More and more research shows phones are bad for development.
https://www.newsweek.com/overcoming-our-denial-about-smartphones-effect-kids-opinion-1926025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000622
But you want to give them to kids why exactly?
The question is not whether you can find one kind of video/streaming that is exploitative but whether all of them are. Is it exploitative to share video from a spelling bee competition? Is it exploitative to share a school theater video? If not, only ban the things that are.
Whether to give phones to children and how is a parents decision. As for the research, it is the same as above. Clearly these issues did not exist with early smartphones. So it’s not the phones, it something on them. My money is on social media and the “idle” games. Parents have the option to prevent installation of those.
You don’t ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombs. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.
Ok, I see your point. You think that videos or random kids dancing on TikTok or kids you don’t know doing theater are somehow valuable are should be protected. Personally I don’t know who enjoys those videos and I think banning all of them achieves the desired goal without sacrificing anything of value. I thought that only other kids watch those videos and that everything about it is harmful. It basically trains easy to influence kids to fight for internet points, teaches the the wrong values and promotes bullying. You clearly think that having kids on TikToc have some benefits. We’re not going to agree about this.
As for phones, if we have science proving that they are harmful to kids I don’t see how they are different from cigarettes or alcohol. Then again, we let parents fuck up their kids in many different ways so I guess you’re right here and we should leave it to them. Their are free to take care of their children if they want to and we can’t force everyone to be a good parent anyway.
No. I believe that what isn’t harmful shouldn’t be banned. You don’t get to decide what is valuable or enjoyable to other people. If it does not harm someone, it should be allowed. We are not robots that are programmed to value things equally. What is insignificant to you can be important to others.
You can make this point about almost any entertainment for children. Having pretty clothes. Having fancy toys. Playing videogames. Playing sports.
Parent your children properly if you have any instead of trying to put them into bubble wrap.
That is not to say there are not specific things that are too harmful, but we won’t ban everything because maybe, some of it it could influence kids badly.
Show me research that show a dumb phone only making calls is harmful and I will admit you are right. Otherwise, it is not phones that are harmful, it is something specific on them. I have no issue regulating apps harmful to kids, like lootboxes, idle games, login rewards, etc. But it is not about phones.