| ▲ | echelon 6 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
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 6 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 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another on social media. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||