Remix.run Logo
Fervicus a day ago

Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.

ElProlactin a day ago | parent | next [-]

Do you not see that the largest companies on the internet are also surveilling everyone and that the massive troves of data they're collecting about their registered users and even non-registered users is directly and indirectly accessible to governments around the world?

someguyiguess a day ago | parent [-]

Doesn’t that prove their point?

ElProlactin 21 hours ago | parent [-]

How so? If you're anti-surveillance, wouldn't you be pleased that under-16s won't be able to use the most wide-ranging and insidious surveillance platforms ever created?

theultdev 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Until they turn 17, then they get to be id-verified surveilled like the rest of us!

Much safe system. Very cozy. Glad kids are safe now. That was close!

ElProlactin 20 hours ago | parent [-]

So what's your solution?

There's substantial evidence for harms on young people that go beyond surveillance, but I guess we now live in a society that embraces throw them to the wolves and see which ones survive?

theultdev 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The only proper solution always used for children. Parent's discretion.

Other people's kids are not my nor the governments business.

I will restrict social media as I see fit for my children. Don't need a nanny state.

No need for "think of the children". You shouldn't be thinking of my children, they are fine. Worry about yourself and your own kids.

ElProlactin 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> The only proper solution always used for children. Parent's discretion.

Cigarettes. Alcohol. Gambling. Weapons. Credit cards and financial products. Solvents/aerosols. Fireworks.

There are tons of products and services that are subject to regulation for children because society has concluded (wisely in most cases) that it is not always possible or effective to rely on parental discretion to prevent harm.

> You shouldn't be thinking of my children, they are fine.

Extreme individualism is in my opinion one of Western society's biggest sore spots right now but I'd like to point out one very practical issue with this approach as it relates to social media.

I can keep my kids off of social media, but social media can still harm them. Your kids can take photos and videos of my kids and post them online without anyone's consent, and use social media to bully my kids.

There is a growing body of evidence about the harms of social media on children's' mental health, particularly as it relates to bullying, and plenty of cases of suicides caused by it.

But I suppose there are other possible solutions. We could enact laws that levy more significant civil and perhaps even criminal penalties on parents whose children use social media to harass and bully. Right now, when parents are found liable for damage caused by their children, civil penalties are usually pretty modest.

If your children, who you say are fine, do something to make my children not fine, you should be willing to take full responsibility for that, right?

paytonjjones a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Regardless of the underlying motives and surveillance outcomes, it will surely affect the kids too. So it's worth discussing.

undersuit a day ago | parent [-]

No one is saying we should not discuss it, but discussing it in the context of the kids is a red herring. It will affect everyone.

insurgent_dino 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

100%, anti-privacy and surveillance laws have always been wrapped in child protection and public safety.

JonoBB a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And yet the vast majority of parents are in favour of a ban.

dindunuf 21 hours ago | parent [-]

vast majority of parents are in favor of banning plenty of things, including some that you like, need, or simply don't find objectable.

philipallstar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.

childofhedgehog a day ago | parent | next [-]

How is it “obviously about the kids”? Is it because they mentioned them? I would argue it will impact the kids but this isn’t being done for their benefit, it’s being done to regulate what we have access to as a whole. Slippery slope coming up!

haunter 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It will apply to everyone once you have to prove you are over 16. Kids are just the excuse.

cedws a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The way this has been pushed through after countless attempts over the past decade, and push back from advising experts, does not feel like it originates from genuine concern for children. It feels like a state trying to wrestle for digital control amidst rising civil unrest.

folkrav a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Almost anything can be made "about the kids" with the right framing.

arcza a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

and why do you get to decide what it "is about"?

philipallstar 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't say people couldn't decide what it's about.

theultdev 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Riddle me this. If you have to verify yourself to prove you are over 16, did that just deanonymize you? Yes.

philipallstar 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Good job I said this, then:

> The problem is it requires surveillance.

theultdev 17 hours ago | parent [-]

So it's not "obviously about kids" then.

philipallstar 9 hours ago | parent [-]

This is like saying "people using cars to get places is really about oil".