56
Youth social media bans should raise privacy concerns for everyone (www.wearequeeraf.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 months ago* (22 children)

So, I understand that any age verification system is data collection. That being said, kids 100% should not be on social media. I think this has been proven time and time again at this point, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    marginalized kids might only find real community and connection on the internet

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    So we should ignore what's happening to all of the other kids???

    By the way, LGBTQ+ kids aren't immune to propaganda. The brainwashing works on them too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    i never said that. i don't know the balance myself, and social media can have very horrible effects, but my point was that it can also have very good effects, especially for those with less support irl

    i think there should be studies and meta studies and deep investigations before anything is done. afaik the research consensus on social media impact on kids and teens is very mixed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    I accept your answers. I have harsh views on social media and I tend to ignore nuance when thinking about it. I feel for marginalized people, I wouldn't want to see them lose the support networks they've developed through the internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    No, it hasn't. Some types of social media no one should be on. However it's a problem of parenting, support and time. Age gating will do nothing to abate it. More than likely it will only hurt the sort of media and social media that people would like to see. Which is by design and why it is being pushed. The burden imposed is far too heavy for all but those with the most wealth and resources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    That being said, kids 100% should not be on social media. I think this has been proven time and time again at this point, no?

    Why? Isn't socializing the base of all society? Aren't social media the privileged way people do socialize nowadays? Why should kids be kept at bay? Is it for their safety? But then...

    • Aren't most kind of abuses happening within families and not online? So, should families be forbidden to kids too and should they be raised collectively, by some institution, instead? But then...
    • Aren't schools (an institution that already deal with kids a few hours every single day of the week) the second place in importance in which kids can sustain abuses of many form? Should kids be kept out of schools too, then?

    Those are too absurd examples (hopefully no one will consider those ideas seriously) of the real absurdity of the entire debate regarding social media. At least, imho.

    If kid's safety was the issue with social media we should change those social media and the way we, the adults, the ones showing the example to kids, are using them. But we're not. Instead, we're making it illegal for kids to use those shitty social media... making them even more enticing to use!

    It looks so much like the prohibition (and we all know how well it turned, and what was the real motivation) it would be funny if it was not so sad for the kids having to deal with that hopelessly clueless adults around them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why? Isn't socializing the base of all society? Aren't social media the privileged way people do socialize nowadays? Why should kids be kept at bay? Is it for their safety?

    Problem is not user or socialize, problem is platform. Design to be addictive, keep you on platform for more ad, feed you dopamine and get emotion to keep you hook.

    Same argument of protect from alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    That's more or less what I 'm saying: we need to work on those tools, not on filtering who is allowed to use them.

    Adults are not that smarter than kids, imvho, they too could very easily be considered 'victims' of those manipulative tools. And maybe they should, watching how they poorly behave while they're pretending to show kids what it means to be a 'responsible adult'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I accept your reasoning, I have pretty harsh views on social media so I tend to believe everyone is better off without.

    I feel for marginalized people, I think it's tragic that they need to rely on internet strangers for support rather than the people in their day to day lives, but that's another topic entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I have pretty harsh views on social media so I tend to believe everyone is better off without

    you won't find me anywhere but here, so we very well agree on that question. I just try to consider the issue itself more than what I may or may not think about it ;)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    No, it has not. What on Earth could possibly be wrong with a young person reading our discussions here on Lemmy and expanding their knowledge about all the topics we discuss here, for example? Even participating in it, asking and answering questions about any topic they find interesting? I find it hard to think of a more harmless hobby.

    I myself started regularly participating in online communities at the age of 10 (that was more than 20 years ago, when there were not yet even rumors of a product called "iPhone" and I didn't even have my first own desktop computer yet). The vast majority of my joyful memories of my preteen and teen years stem from my participation in online communities. The vast majority of memories I have of pretty much anything else during that time period are negative. Online communities taught me many important things about life that I now use every day and that I probably wouldn't have easily learned elsewhere. They turned me into a more creative person with better communication skills, especially in writing.

    So, no, the situation is not that people who want to ban young people from social media have a noble goal that oh-so-unfortunately cannot be achieved without invading everyone's privacy. The situation is that those people have a completely illegitimate (in my mind, outright evil) goal in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    There are plenty of reasons why I don't think kids should be on Lemmy, at the very least without supervision. Like, come on — people post porn here regularly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    We now already have a few generations with plenty of members who started watching online porn when they were technically too young for that, and we can now tell that this hasn't harmed them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Prove it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You can't prove a negative, that's not how experiments and hypothesis works.

    If you're making a claim that early exposure causes harm, you're the one that has to prove it via the following steps:

    • Set up criterias for assessment
    • Decide on a test methodology
    • Collect data
    • Analyze results and draw conclusions
    • Publish for peer review to make sure your methodology was appropriate

    Congratulations, you have just been taught how to do science

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    You can't prove a negative, that's not how experiments and hypothesis works.

    Yet you completely ignored studies like this from the National Library of Medicine

    Excerpt:

    Prolonged exposure to pornography is known to lead to habituation, resulting in blunted processing of pleasurable stimuli and greater sensitivity to negative stimuli (21). Continuous use of pornography impairs emotional processing capacity and flattens affect, reducing emotional connection to real-life sexual experiences. The reward and gratification system adapts by releasing large amounts of dopamine, but tolerance develops, requiring increasingly higher doses, quantities, and intensity to achieve arousal

    So we know it behaves like a drug, the study goes into further detail how it affects adolescents — and here you are saying 'no it isn't actually that bad'.

    Ask a heroin addict about his quality of life and his answer depends on his last hit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent