Where is your hard evidence?
GiveOver@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Extremely happy with this one. I understand everyone’s worries about surveillance and all that, and I agree with a lot of it, but I think in this case it’s worth it. Social media is just that bad.
From my own point of view, I hate hate hate Instagram/Facebook/Tiktok. When my kids get to that age I’d be facing a binary choice of either letting them use it or turning them into the “one weird kid in the class who isn’t allowed insta”. Even if this law is only 25% effective, that’s good enough for me. My kids will be in that 25% not using it, and I don’t have to worry about them being social pariahs.
From a wider point of view, social media is severely fucking up the entire world. I think it’s too much for most adults, let alone kids. No way should kids be on there.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
GiveOver@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Where is your hard evidence?
I’m sure you scrolled past plenty of studies that agreed with me when searching for your cherry picked example.
BMP5k@feddit.uk 5 days ago
If we agree social media can be harmful, then why is it an age question and not changing it at its source for everyone like removing infinite scroll. All this does is normalise ID checks for social media so that when the kids are old enough to be on it, they don’t see an issue with assigning their ID to their online activity. At the same time we have people getting arrested for protesting which is meant to be a human right.