Remix.run Logo
threeseed 5 days ago

> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia

2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days.

Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group leading to poorer educational and social developmental outcomes at a critical time in their live.

That's why you need governments and platform owners to be heavily involved.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/...

DrillShopper 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days.

Don't have kids if you're unwilling to parent them. "It's hard! :(" is not an argument.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

exe34 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

that sounds quite puritan. my god says I can't, is one thing. my god says you can't either, is very different.

now replace god with parent.

monkeywork 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

You realize that is how EVERY law works right... The person your replying to says the public overall supports the idea/law. If following that law is a deal breaker for you you either need to persuade thos ppl to your view or move

exe34 3 days ago | parent [-]

A law to stop people from not going out of their way to include you when you made a choice to be unreachable sounds pretty desperate.

jasonfarnon 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

maybe it's "puritan" or maybe it's a normal view and it looks puritan from where you stand. how do you know which? One bit of evidence is the 2/3 to 1/3 split.

exe34 3 days ago | parent [-]

Everybody loves government overreach until the government starts to tell you how to live.