As a millennial-aged person I saw a fair amount of content I would not want the young people in my life to see, but it's probably not nearly as harmful as the non-age gated content that they will still have access to. There is a lot creepy youtube and tiktok content that isn't off limits but still unhealthy and my younger relatives are fascinated by it.

▲

kentm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.

▲

sciencejerk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know

	▲	grey-area an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, a lot of it involves denigrating women and an entitled and very rigid attitude towards the male place in society (alphas etc). This is incredibly toxic for young men growing up and the women they interact with. Some of the more prominent proponents are actual pimps (the Tate brothers).

▲

pphysch an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.

▲

Balinares an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A hundred thousand furries consuming unfathomable amounts of porn without shooting up anyone kind of cast doubt about that point.

	▲	sciencejerk an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Who is talking about furries? But Tyler James Robinson and Benjamin Jeffrey Smith. I guess that's only 2/100k to your point?

▲

nearlyepic an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.

I mean, quite a few have come from proto-manosphere circles, too. Elliot Rodger comes to mind.

▲

vasco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you saw a bunch of it and presumably are fine what does it matter then? Sure it might have been uncomfortable for a few days and you may not have understood right away but so what? That's almost every week as a kid. Seeing some titties is probably the least confusing.

	▲	anonzzzies 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Many uncles of friends (or fathers, who knows) had stacks of porn mags we knew where they were as 70s kids. When very young they were icky and after that we took them home. Who cares.

▲

echelon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We need to stop this helicopter civilization bullshit.

We're building 1984 to protect from god knows what imaginary harms.

Stop putting plastic wrap around people's freedoms, liberty, and right to privacy.

▲

Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The harms of smartphones and social media are about as far from imaginary as it could get. The data is screaming at us.

We will look back at handing kids phones with instagram like giving kids cigarettes and think wtf were we doing.

▲

AngryData 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And I find that harm to be far less than the harm caused by identifying everybody all the time and censoring topics to people based on government provided tokens.

▲

imjonse an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's no coincidence cigarettes were named 'torches of freedom' to get women to start paying up for the privilege of using them a hundred years ago.

▲

echelon 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you sure it's just kids?

In dealing with the ills of social media, you do what you do with every other negative externality - you tax it. At least the parts of it you don't like.

Designing privacy, freedom, and liberty destroying mechanisms is not the way.

Big social wants these regulations to pass so that they can get better identity tracking for ads targeting. To them it doesn't matter if the tech ushers in 1984. It makes them more money.

▲

bloqs 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure I get your arguement here

Are you saying that we should let children smoke and just tax it because its better for their liberty and freedoms?

Or are you saying we should just tax social media for adults but banning it for kids is ok

	▲	anonzzzies 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We do that here; heavy tax sigarettes (and booze): both dropped like a lead balloon. So yes, tax it for everyone. Kids cannot pay for sigarettes and most adults don't want to (most vapers I know do it because it costs far less; that should be taxed more too imho). If browsing insta/tiktok costs an euro per hour, let's see how many still do it; I'd say they go bankrupt in a few months. Apparently it was never that interesting.

▲

Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's definitely not just kids. Social media is a lot like meth, we should at a bare minimum stop giving it to kids as soon as possible. And then come to realise it's bad for everyone and should be wound back.

	▲	Paracompact 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Their argument would be, "If meth is a negative externality, we should just tax it instead of banning it in stores for kids to buy." Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something.

▲

PeterStuer 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"We" are building 1984 to make sure "We" stay in power of our EU Animal Farm.

	▲	krige 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		EU? It's mostly happening elsewhere though. See: Australia. See: California. See: KIDS act. See: KOSA. Sounds like denial or tunnel vision.

▲

countcol 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

smilekzs 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The legal guardian is responsible for gatekeeping what their minor sees or does not see.

▲

echelon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd seen all the shock websites by age 12. Kids love to prank each other.

None of this is a real harm. The real harms are the government being able to put a muzzle on speech, track who says what, and begin to cordon off areas of thought and expression.

You might think it's a win that this is happening, but you won't be the one in charge and you won't have a say how it's used against you.

▲

doginasuit 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think it is a win, I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. There should be enough room for nuance to acknowledge that the internet is uniquely unhealthy for young people. I don't find 'I saw all the bad stuff and look how great I turned out' very compelling.

If empirical research showed that some kind of intervention would be helpful, I'd be in favor of it even if it comes at a cost. But I don't think age-gating will prove effective as an intervention. If anyone needs to be reined in, it is tech companies that exploit attention and gather data, and the age-gating controversy is a costly distraction.

▲

denkmoon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another on social media.

▲

echelon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another

This would be the "fixed" version of your comment. The social media bit is irrelevant.

Kids have always been assholes to other kids. I took the school bus a few times, and the older neighborhood kids tried to chase me down, beat me, and piss on me. That was before the internet.

You can't make up for other parents' bad parenting by trying to invent a system to bubble wrap all the kids. You teach your own kids to be strong in the face of adversity, to grow a thick skin, and to stand up for themselves.

	▲	fwipsy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just because you survived it doesn't mean that it's "not real harm." I am sympathetic to privacy concerns, but the downsides also need to be taken seriously and mitigated where it's possible to do so without critically compromising privacy.

▲

Balinares an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a hunch that the Epstein class is getting increasingly upset about the kids encountering ideas about what ought to be done about the Epstein class, and mostly are keen to see the next generation molded back into good little subservient laborers. It really isn't about the well-being of the kids.