| ▲ | lII1lIlI11ll 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
In discussions similar to this I often see parents expressing their happiness with a state taking the role of a "bad cop" so that the parents can just wash their hands off telling their children it is state's fault they can no longer use TikTok ("I can’t express how much easier it is to restrict it and not seem like a kook when authorities are also on board." from OP) instead of having a proper conversation about harms of social media with the children. This is literally a cop out for them from a proper parenting. From my point of view I'm already paying for their brats with higher taxes, now I will also have to gradually give my documents to random web sites more and more just to reduce the "burden" of parenting on lazy parents... | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mlrtime 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
You're missing the collective action problem. When 95% of kids have TikTok, telling your kid "no" doesn't just mean having a conversation about social media harms, it means making them a social outcast. Sure, you can be that parent, but you're choosing between your kid's mental health from algorithmic content versus their mental health from social isolation. Individual parents can't solve network effect problems, that's exactly what policy is for. This isn't laziness, it's recognizing that some problems require coordination beyond the family level. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>I often see parents expressing their happiness with a state taking the role of a "bad cop" As an actual parent, I have never heard of this or seen it. Can you provide some real examples? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||