this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
89 points (91.6% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2725 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Meta has criticized Australia’s new law banning under-16s from social media, claiming the government rushed it without considering young people’s perspectives or evidence.

The law, approved after a brief inquiry, imposes fines of up to $50 million for non-compliance and has sparked global interest as a potential model for regulating social media.

Supporters argue it protects teens from harmful content, while critics, including human rights groups and mental health advocates, warn it could marginalize youth and ignore the positive impacts of social media.

Enforcement and technical feasibility remain significant concerns.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 14 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Fuck Meta but 16 seems a little bit old just because of the enforcement challenges. I’m not arguing social media is good for 14 and 15 year-olds. I’m just saying they’re often clever little shits who systematically test boundaries. They’re like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park.

Basically, I think a better strategy would be something like a ban for 13 and under. Then, a harm reduction strategy for 14-17 year-olds. Like maybe sequester them. They don’t want adults on their timeline anyway and (normal) adults don’t really want teens on theirs. Maybe allow them to follow approved pop stars and athletes or something but not random adults.

Basically, social media training wheels for older teens so they develop some social media literacy before they’re just tossed into the cesspool of adult social media.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I think this assumes that putting restrictions on the behaviour of young people doesn't have value even if they will find ways to do things anyways. Taking responsibility in circumventing boundaries to pursue your interests is part of growing up and is valuable to explore while still under 18, and it also clearly signals that social media is dangerous and not to be treated without thought.

Kids also: do drugs, look at porn, get in fights, swear (restricted in many households and schools but obviously not usually by law), drink/smoke/vape, play with fireworks, play with gunpowder, play with fire/matches, play with knives, the list is basically endless. Restricting these things does not have no value just because people will do them anyways, we just need to always keep in mind that kids will be kids and our goal is to make things safer and put up guidelines without being overbearing.