Seems to me like the wrong way to address the problem. But I guess it's easier to ban people with no political voice from a vital tool for social connectivity than it is to hold the large companies hosting those tools accountable for socially-damaging practices.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’ve been too naive. We’ve left children’s digital lives to platforms that never had their wellbeing in mind. We must move from digital captivity to community.”

Powerful words.

Small question: Why are you giving these horrible platforms more leverage over their digital captives instead of just banning them or outlawing the worst parts of their business models?

Maybe instead of banning social media there should be some sort of consensus as to how social media should operate. Get rid of algorithms designed to become addicting or push products harmful to people. Reduce advertisements. Don't push content that's from around the world, focus on things immediately connected to someone's life like posts from friends and family not Rogan and Tate.

Denmark following Australia’s lead, who are following the UKs version.

The fact that these massive companies that have way too much sway over politicians already are only vaguely, fighting this, concerns me. Feels like this is more about feeding everyone into the facial recognition databases, with the added bonus of censorship

Let me guess, we're I Danish (or when this shit spreads to my country) I would have identify my accounts to the government and or corporations.

There will be loopholes and those loopholes will be exploited by children. The intention is good but the solution is the usual "we don't know what to do so let's ban it". There is a rule or law for everything in Denmark.

Sounds like someone is trying to avoid regulating social media platforms.

How about "User must be subscribed to see an activity" so the algo doesn't just roll you into a rabbit hole.

Subscriptions can still recommend other subscriptions and people can share stuff from their subscriptions but liking something shouldn't qualify.

I think it's clear that there are problems with children's use of social media today.

But a blanket ban is not the way to go. Especially since it will most likely just lead to age verification and all the issues that brings.

I think kids shouldn't have smart phones at all. Banning from social media is the wrong way to handle it. Parent's need to be held accountable for allowing their kids to have too much phone time. It rots the brain. There are way too many kids that can't read, do basic math, or do anything by themselves without the help of AI. It's ridiculous.

As usual, here are my (extremely) unpopular opinions: 1: This ban is made to extend to smartphones for children overall, allowing some abuse situations to be carried out without risk. Furthermore, this might (later) extend to some workers, women overall, then lower “castes” and classes. 2: This is another way for Chat Control to also be implemented later, by setting the roots for such.

Oh, another thing: using age as a metric is darn stupid — aren't some of the worst leaders actually quite… elderly?

Social media is to kids today what cigarettes were to teens last century. Might even be better compared to the Radium marketing blitz that poisoned so many while making a few very rich.

She is right. I don't use a smartphone anymore. I now use a dumbphone. It helps me focus and reduce stress. Turns out you don't need the internet with you 24/7. If someone really needs me, he can call.

Nah. USA is by letting social media companies propagate fascist ideaology

As an anarchist, I wish it would go further, and only 21+years olds with OPSEC training could go on the internet.

One of the few instances I agree with Mette Frederiksen on this issue.
Social media is worse than heroin addiction.
How Denmark will implement the law remains to be seen.

Social media isn't the school's website, or the community news.