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.
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 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.