WhyJiffie comments on Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn't just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.

when will we ban personalized advertising?

or any kinds of advertising that is more than just showing that your product/service is there.

but unfortunately, with deceptive videos all over the internet, that wouldn't help at all.

However I'd argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what's going on in the world.

that's right, but I think because of a lack of substantial amount of experiences (before being exposed to media), they have much less of a chance at figuring out what's real and what isn't.
heck I only started using facebook near the end of elementary school. and then when I got to be voting age, I had almost no clue about the running political parties, how truthful they are and what is their past. I just slightly missed being able to vote the time before that, and I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. "oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!"

nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they'll give money to all below 20 if they are elected, and they get a bunch of votes. and the election office will do nothing. or they promise to lower the graduation requirements. or to make it unlawul to ban smartphone usage at school lessons. or anything that sounds good to them but everybody else knows is a bad idea.
they could have even cooperated with another party to make sure this one doesn't get elected, but takes votes away from another one.
all because they promised something on tiktok, or really any platform that auto plays videos when scrolling by.

deceptive social (and traditional) media is exactly why we can't allow this. and if you allow them to vote, you just made it so that now we can't even keep them away legally from that social media, because if you do that they won't vote for you anymore, and the next party will just undo your laws.

And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don't see how that would be an argument against it.

I think those adults had decades of life experiences that could have helped them recognize that they are being deceived and used. childrens won't have any of that. They'll have no chance of recognizing that, unless someone they trust tells them and they want to believe it.

it would also be interesting to read a study that compares the effects of video effects, animations and vibrant nice colors in videos on different age groups.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] golli@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm reading your post and it reads just the same as what applies to many adults.

I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. “oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!”

I can't even get started how many politicians have a corrupt past here in Germany and got plenty of votes.

nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they’ll give money to all below 20 if they are elected

Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.

I also think you vastly overestimate the amount of influence underage voters would yield. Especially in our demographic structures and based on the fact that a significantly lower share of them would actually make use of it. They certainly wouldn't have the power to introduce sweeping changes against the better judgement of other voting blocks. But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.

To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad? It might be a good thing, but i don't think this is conclusively proven. In return it is probably something being pushed by a large majority that might not even use a smartphone on a daily basis or at the least is very far removed from the current level of technology. And it also wouldn't all need to be negative. Take for example the stop killing games petition that is quite popular on this site. That one might suddenly gain some more supporters, which are actually affected by it.

However i'd also see a need for more studies. And i probably wouldn't just make a major shift like that instantaneously, but rather in a gradual way and maybe lead with changes to smaller more local elections first. Which might give opportunities for such studies.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.

so they were lying, except to the youth, because to them they didn't have a message. that's a positive thing to me.

But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.

part of my worries is this, but rather how will this affect all of them, when sociopathic people will start targeting them with even more brainwashing/reeducation content.

To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad?

what do you mean? the banning the school-level banning of it? the problem is not smartphones themselves, but what they can do.
playing games and scrolling social media on lessons. taking pictures of your peers against their will, like when they get humiliated. using the infra blaster to fuck with classroom equipment. all of these were happening in my class, just a few years ago. unless your solution is mandating school-issued spyware on every phone, which I don't support, the only solution is to ban them in one way or another. possibly only on lessons. and then somehow solve the problem of stolen phones, when someone knowingly took away a different phone at the end of lesson.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] golli@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago

so they were lying, except to the youth, because to them they didn’t have a message. that’s a positive thing to me.

No, i might have been a bit unclear with my wording, but the pensioners got their huge gifts. They are the largest group of the electorate (and growing) , so there are plenty of incentives to please them, unlike children, who have no vote.

I was more thinking about a blanked ban on school grounds, not just during lessons. In any case i am not necessarily against it, but i think this brings us off topic too much. My main point was mostly just that particularly in regards to technology there might be a large gap and the younger generations would bring some perspectives that might not be properly represented.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent