I’ve said this before and will say it again.
-
I’ve said this before and will say it again. If you think social media is so toxic that it damages 16-year-olds then it damages everyone. You don’t magically become immune on your 17th birthday. Either ban it for everyone or not at all.
@billbennett what’s your position on driver’s licenses?
-
@billbennett what’s your position on driver’s licenses?
@billbennett Sorry I should have been more clear, I’m not advocating for or against a ban on social media, just pointing out that sometimes age gates do make sense.
-
I’ve said this before and will say it again. If you think social media is so toxic that it damages 16-year-olds then it damages everyone. You don’t magically become immune on your 17th birthday. Either ban it for everyone or not at all.
@billbennett ... or regulate it so it works in a less toxic fashion.
-
@billbennett what’s your position on driver’s licenses?
@Stevet @billbennett we're moving towards driverless cars aren't we? Let's just ban everything already. We can't have nice things because we ruin everything. Might as well take oxygen away.
-
@billbennett ... or regulate it so it works in a less toxic fashion.
@leighelse This is exactly where I'm going with my thinking... and make the tech giants responsible for any harm they cause where it can be showed they are negligent.
-
@billbennett Sorry I should have been more clear, I’m not advocating for or against a ban on social media, just pointing out that sometimes age gates do make sense.
@Stevet Yes, the licence one does make sense. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and anyway kids can't just go out unrestricted on the roads on their birthday.
-
I’ve said this before and will say it again. If you think social media is so toxic that it damages 16-year-olds then it damages everyone. You don’t magically become immune on your 17th birthday. Either ban it for everyone or not at all.
@billbennett yup, don’t ban it, fix it. Litigate against the bastards 🤨
-
@leighelse This is exactly where I'm going with my thinking... and make the tech giants responsible for any harm they cause where it can be showed they are negligent.
@billbennett @leighelse This is the way. Social media will be the 'tobacco harm' of the 21st century in my view. I also do understand the impulse behind wanting to have some age-limit/bans in place though. We do that with tobacco and alcohol now and I think social media falls into the same level of societal harm. But evidence suggests they don't work and have all sorts of unintended consequences.
The best response is regulate the industry and making them accountable for the harm they are undoubtedly causing, especially to young people.
-
@leighelse This is exactly where I'm going with my thinking... and make the tech giants responsible for any harm they cause where it can be showed they are negligent.
@billbennett @leighelse @WiteWulf @Stevet
How do you do that without also making it effectively illegal for anyone who's *not* a tech giant, i.e. doesn't have billions to spend on AI content moderation, to operate a website?
And how you define “harm” in a way that doesn't result in censorship of political expression, LGBTQ+ resources, etc?
You can't. Which is why this whole idea needs to be thrown in the incinerator. I don't like X or Meta either, but censorship is far, far worse.
-
@billbennett @leighelse This is the way. Social media will be the 'tobacco harm' of the 21st century in my view. I also do understand the impulse behind wanting to have some age-limit/bans in place though. We do that with tobacco and alcohol now and I think social media falls into the same level of societal harm. But evidence suggests they don't work and have all sorts of unintended consequences.
The best response is regulate the industry and making them accountable for the harm they are undoubtedly causing, especially to young people.
The fundamental problem with this line of thinking is that we are discussing speech, not drugs. Speech is not a drug. Speech is a right. Outlawing speech is forbidden under most definitions of human rights, and for good reason: very very very bad things happen immediately after that (see also: Germany, 1930s).
These politicians all studied history. They know this. Which means this must be their whole intention. Which is absolutely terrifying…
-
@billbennett @leighelse This is the way. Social media will be the 'tobacco harm' of the 21st century in my view. I also do understand the impulse behind wanting to have some age-limit/bans in place though. We do that with tobacco and alcohol now and I think social media falls into the same level of societal harm. But evidence suggests they don't work and have all sorts of unintended consequences.
The best response is regulate the industry and making them accountable for the harm they are undoubtedly causing, especially to young people.
@paulh @leighelse Yes. That is pretty much my point of view. Set some rules and come down hard when there are clear cases of negligence. I prefer to make the services switch off for a while as a punishment to imposing fines, which they just see as a cost of doing business.
-
The fundamental problem with this line of thinking is that we are discussing speech, not drugs. Speech is not a drug. Speech is a right. Outlawing speech is forbidden under most definitions of human rights, and for good reason: very very very bad things happen immediately after that (see also: Germany, 1930s).
These politicians all studied history. They know this. Which means this must be their whole intention. Which is absolutely terrifying…
@argv_minus_one who said anything about censorship? Not me…
-
I’ve said this before and will say it again. If you think social media is so toxic that it damages 16-year-olds then it damages everyone. You don’t magically become immune on your 17th birthday. Either ban it for everyone or not at all.
It is addictive like alcohol. So yes. Age limits don't stop under-age drinking, but it changes the conversation.
-
@billbennett @leighelse @WiteWulf @Stevet
How do you do that without also making it effectively illegal for anyone who's *not* a tech giant, i.e. doesn't have billions to spend on AI content moderation, to operate a website?
And how you define “harm” in a way that doesn't result in censorship of political expression, LGBTQ+ resources, etc?
You can't. Which is why this whole idea needs to be thrown in the incinerator. I don't like X or Meta either, but censorship is far, far worse.
@argv_minus_one @billbennett @WiteWulf @Stevet No-one's talking censorship. That's a straw man argument, in my opinion. What we are talking about is a transparent algorithm that users can opt out of or modify as they choose.
-
@billbennett ... or regulate it so it works in a less toxic fashion.
@leighelse I also want to see liability for negligence to rest with the social media companies. They need to take responsibility for the damage harmful algorithms do.
-
@argv_minus_one @billbennett @WiteWulf @Stevet No-one's talking censorship. That's a straw man argument, in my opinion. What we are talking about is a transparent algorithm that users can opt out of or modify as they choose.
@leighelse @argv_minus_one @billbennett @Stevet absolutely this. It's not about censorship.
-
@leighelse @argv_minus_one @billbennett @Stevet absolutely this. It's not about censorship.
Indeed, the "ban" is effectively a tool to identify everyone using almost all websites regardless of age.
It is an oppressive surveillance mechanism promulgated by Meta and others to deflect from their own responsibilities, penalties for which would bankrupt them.
It's not the kids, or the user base in general, that are doing the harm.
-
I’ve said this before and will say it again. If you think social media is so toxic that it damages 16-year-olds then it damages everyone. You don’t magically become immune on your 17th birthday. Either ban it for everyone or not at all.
@billbennett For real — look at all the 65 year olds getting hella radicalised on Facebook.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
