So the solution for criminals in the public is for everybody to show their papers walking into a public square? It is not, we have requirements for police process like warrants and a process for determining the requirements for urgent conditions of arrest.

▲

bluegatty 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, obviously not, and this is a completely glib argument.

Who is suggesting people 'show their papers' to go into a public square?

Literally nobody.

It really demonstrates how bad the analogy is - so much so that it's not even analogy.

The 'social controls' on the 'public square' are limited by a few laws (aka directed violence) but apart from that you can say as you like, kids can as well - it's where parents can be parents.

And - don't have problem with kids in the public square.

We have a very real problem with kids on social media, verifiable, scientific.

Kids are depressed, distracted, they bully each other, they're creeped on, and they're not yet in the business having serious discussions about 'Mein Kampf' - they're kids.

Everything in kids lives is introduced in an 'age appropriate' fashion - literally everything.

Given the toxicity of social media, it's a 'primary concern' for one of those gated things.

This is not even an argument - the only argument is 'the slippery slope'.

▲

dv_dt 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The science for age bans on social media is weak at best. There were pretty much terrible studies done during Covid and did not attribute all sorts of uncertainty going on at the same time.

If the point were to improve on the mental health of kids there are countless underfunded public programs. Especially in the US, social support programs like food, healthcare basic and mental, actual physical public spaces for kids, arts in curriculum, etc.

	▲	simondotau 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For what it’s worth, as an Australian, and as the operator of an online community, I unreservedly approve of the social media ban enforced by our government. Conversely, I don’t agree with the way some other countries are going about it. Especially the UK with the abysmal way they have physically policed online speech by adults. Incredibly sad to see police prioritise non-violent “speech crimes” because they’re too scaredy-cat to tackle actual violent crime. There is a reasonable answer to be found, if we're willing to be inventive. It shouldn’t be beyond the imagination of cryptography experts to design a system where only governments can issue an age identification certificate, which individuals can use to generate verifiable proof of age tokens. But where the tokens can’t be used by the government to identify the individual.
	▲	fyredge 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is hauntingly reminiscent of the gun law argument in US: The government shouldn't infringe on my right to bear arms, mass shooting is a mental health issue anyways, oh but we can't really fund mental health support because my tax shouldn't go towards helping those who put themselves in that situation. Que the same argument for privacy on the internet. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't trust the government, then work towards healing it, restructuring it, overhauling it. Subverting the government is such antisocial behaviour, very criminal like.

▲

simondotau 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If that’s how you interpreted my post, I can only hypothesis that you didn’t read it. I can’t think of another explanation.

I actually like the traditional public square model: you have anonymity most of the time, but it’s not some absolute shield you can abuse to be an obnoxious prick. The police can intervene, but the intervention happens in the public square too.