Ah yes brilliant. Let's keep trying to solve these issues that we've been trying to solve for centuries. That's clearly going well. Instead, let's put a bandaid on it so we don't have to look at the issue for a little bit.

Alternatively, letting some kids who struggle to form connections IRL learn to form them online might give some the confidence and self-assuredness to form connections IRL when they want to.

Anyway I'm not sure why you think that I'm suggesting we don't try to address bullying and family abuse. Did I say we should only do one or the other?

▲

awillowingmind 3 days ago | parent [-]

We very clearly are making progress on these century long issues, unless you somehow think kids now are growing up in more hostile physical environments than they were 100 years ago.

This ban does not prevent kids from using IM platforms like WhatsApp, Messenger, Discord so your argument that this somehow restricts the ability for online communication is false.

What you are arguing against is the restriction of access to apps like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, Snapchat —- all of which are filled with predatory algorithms that have shown to have negative affect on the mental health of teens, young adults, AND adults.

	▲	squigz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What you are arguing against is the restriction of access to apps like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, Snapchat —- all of which are filled with predatory algorithms that have shown to have negative affect on the mental health of teens, young adults, AND adults. Actually, what I'm arguing against is the restriction of whatever apps a government chooses to apply their very loose definition to. What happens when the kids congregate on another platform? Presumably they'll just add that to the list too, right? Does a cat and mouse game seem productive? To say nothing of the precedent set being used for political ends. What I'm arguing for is stuff that may actually solve the underlying issues - like, for example, addressing those predatory algorithms you refer to.