Technology

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-09/abs-website-inaccessible-on-census-night/7711652

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 48 points 7 months ago

Our government is usually technologically inept.

The first online census (2016) crashed the system because they didn't allow enough capacity. Anyone with half a brain could have told them that most people were going to try to use it during one particular time -- after dinner (especially since the paper census is supposed to count everyone on that particular night). Instead, they decided to rate it for only 1 million form submissions per hour, despite estimating that two-thirds of Australians would fill it out online. At one person per family, that's around 4 million online submissions. Now factor in that the eastern states have most of the population (and are all in the same time zone at that time of year) and, predictably, the site went down after dinner on census night.

parent

[–] JustGottaWhippet 1 point 7 months ago

Its no different to the government blocker they forced ISPs to adhere to.

Politicians know best. /s

parent

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 52 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't know. There's some joy in saying I told you so, to people who had the hubris to try and stop teenagers from being teenagers.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 23 points 7 months ago (1 child)

We will simply pass laws requiring them to be adults! Easy!

parent

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Careful, you might give the pedo states an idea.

parent

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 168 points 7 months ago (73 children)

It was never designed to protect children

Glad to see it's not even working. Let's keep fighting aginst these evil laws

hideshow 73 child comments

[–] expr@piefed.social 52 points 7 months ago (25 children)

I mean, social media should be banned for everyone, not just teenagers. It's a great evil in the world today, and in a functional democracy that wasn't braindead, we should ban them outright for the mass harm and destruction they have caused.

That being said, I fully understand that the motivations of countries for these kinds of bans have little to do with the harm of social media and are much more about surveillance.

hideshow 25 child comments

parent

[–] Link@rentadrunk.org 22 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Which type of social media are we referring to here?

Doesn’t Lemmy count as social media?

parent

[–] nguarracino@programming.dev 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

There's a list of 10 or 12 social networks that are banned: YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, etc.

Lemmy is still legal.

parent

[–] Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Lemmy is legal because it’s too small for them to notice.

And YouTube is an incredible resource for finding information. It’s not social media at all.

parent

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 27 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Its also an incredible resource for finding misinformation and disinformation unfortunately.

parent

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 months ago

That's an issue with any form of information sharing, though. Your local library is full of false information as well, whether that's because it's outdated or because you live somewhere like the US where all school curriculum books have to be approved by a Texas based group per federal law.

Lies spread faster than the truth, and the internet is great at spreading information.

parent

[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

To be fair YouTube Sharts is a thing

parent

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago*

Given they have been clear they want you addicted then it counts. Their days of being information were long ago. It’s tat now.

parent

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (15 children)

It's so bonkers how most of the older generations agree that being on the internet cannot make you social, yet became the default method to communicate.

Ban it for everyone? I mean, lemmy itself is a social network platform, if you want it to be. But I know what you mean: social media being the most used platforms, Google, Facebook, Tik-Tok, etc . . . And for that, yeah, I do agree with a full ban. We need a cultural reset, where we aren't being fed sensationalist bullshit and pure brainrot as entertainment via an algorithm trained on our insufficient capacity to regulate our attention.

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 23 points 7 months ago (11 children)

In my view social media is probably not the problem, but the algorithms they use that are designed to be addictive and manipulative.

I saw an article once arguing that the algorithms should be regulated in a similar way to medicine. Give some base ingredients they can use freely (e.g. sort by newest first), then require any others to run studies to prove they are not harmful.

There would be an expert board that approves or declines the new algorithm in the same way medicines are approved today (the important bit being that they are experts, not politicians making the decision).

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 11 points 7 months ago (5 children)

This is the correct response. Social media, as a construct, is not evil and dos not do harm to anyone. The commodification and commercialisation of social media by capitalistic companies is what has caused the harm we see today.

All of the harms and evils of social media can be boiled down to a single concept: the algorithm. Because algorithmic recommendation of content wants to encourage people to stay on a platform (for capitalistic reasons), and the most enticing and attention-grabbing content is hate-content, these companies have forced hate-inducing concepts down the throats of people in an endeavour to make more money and destroyed individuals and families/friends in the process.

If we regulate the algorithms, we regulate the harm without disempowering anyone. We can, and we should, regulate algorithms on social media to turn it back into what it was 20-odd years ago - a measure to keep in touch with people you know or care about.

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Social media does cause harm. It tricks you into thinking you are socializing with those near you when you aren't. It tricks you into thinking people are talking in good faith, similar to in person communication. Finally, social media is a huge attack vector for scams and abuse due to the anonymity and ability to connect anywhere in the world.

All of these things produce an overwhelmingly negative social experience from social media. That wouldn't be a problem if our defining trait wasn't how we socialize in groups. Socializing is as important as water and food for humans.

parent

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm not trying to do a gotcha, but doesn't your post also mean that Lemmy is bad and no one should use it?

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Yes, and if I spend too much time on here it affects my perceptions of people in real life. I do a few other things that aren't really healthy as well. I'm sure I could do better.

parent

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 point 7 months ago

That's fair enough. I just wanted to make sure I understand what you meant. I don't think I agree, but I'm not certain I disagree either.

parent

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago*

55% of any message is conveyed through nonverbal elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc).

Crazy how social media is seen as this thing that we somehow have a beneficial relationship with in such a short period of time. Impossible. The brain hasn't changed much in the past thousands of years.

parent

[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 5 points 7 months ago

I wish I saw this kind of insightful point of view more often in the discourse over social media. It's stopped being about being social once algorithmic content curation became the norm to drive engagement and advertising money which is the real evil.

parent

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

excellent take, I never thought of regulation on something digital like an algorithm (concerning social media) to be, I guess, possible when some government officials barely understand what an IP address is.

But that's the thing, where's the motivation for this board of experts to exist coming from? There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

That is why I just generalize and say that social media is the problem, because most people won't care to hear anything deeper. They are already addicted, and don't care for a cure.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

I think at one point you could make the same argument about medicines. The problem is that politicians are appointed with a popularity contest.

I don't remember all the arguments of the article, but when you think about it, the harms of social media are medical. It's possible that we could expand the scope of the current medicine approval boards to include algorithms, with their job not being to understand the algorithm but to understand the research on mental health.

I don't have all the answers, but I do think it's an idea worth exploring.

parent

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

I agree, and neither do I have all the answers. It is worth exploring, I'm just pessimistic most of the time.

parent

[–] JustGottaWhippet 1 point 7 months ago

I mean this should have been done with respect to Google's search algo too. Sure it's commercial advantage but it's also disadvantage to those not paying.

parent

[–] expr@piefed.social 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

If you take such a broad definition of social media, then nearly the entire Internet becomes "social media" and the term loses its meaning, IMO.

parent

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago*

Broad? Is youtube not social? Facebook? Tik-tok? Forums like reddit or lemmy, where people communicate directly, abiding by social norms and etiquette?

The internet and it's myriads of networks is all information relayed globally via copper, fibre and radio waves. Never did I say that the internet itself is a social network.

parent

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It's not a generational war, it's a class war.

This has nothing to do with "boomers".

parent

[–] arcine@jlai.lu 5 points 7 months ago

Do you realize you posted this very comment on social media ? Do you think they should ban the fediverse as well !?

parent

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I agree, social media is harmful for all, no matter the age. We shouldn't be destined to further segment and disfranchise individuals solely because they're "inferior", based on age or any other discriminatory factor - the thing is, who is the victim and who is the abuser in this case? Because the situation at hand seems like the victims are getting punished for the wrongdoings of the abuser.

This is where we are at, the corporations flipped the script, and we as a society gulped it all down, tightening the handcuffs around the wrong hands.

But besides the point, relating to the logic within your statement, who are you trying to ban here? Because you mention both "everyone" and "them" - which consequently makes it ambiguous, which introduces double meaning.

parent

[+] Lodespawn@aussie.zone -28 points 7 months ago (46 children)

I don't think they are evil. A bunch of people with good intentions who didn't understand the problem are trying to solve it with a gut feeling rather than analysis and evidence. It's really disappoi ting that they would waste so much of our time and money like this.

hideshow 46 child comments

parent

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Former Facebook higher ups have gone on the record to say the Facebook uses destructive algorithms to keep people hooked, they know exactly what they are doing and don't care how it affects us as long as they can squeeze more info from us for more profit. Thinking Silicon Valley tech billionaires actually care about you? Bro, you need to wake up.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago

We're talking about Australian legislation not social media itself. The problem is real, the legislation is ineffective and poorly implemented. Calling the legislation evil is a stretch. Modern social media is most certainly evil.

https://agelesslinux.org/citations.html

parent

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

parent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone -5 points 7 months ago

parent

[+] Deceptichum 10 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

The packaging was just a taster for what's to come, I.e. discrimination leading to fascism.

parent

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 31 points 7 months ago (36 children)

There is no problem to solve that hasn't already been addressed with parental controls.

hideshow 36 child comments

parent

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

If the parental control comes from the social media site itself then it's likely the parent that's being controlled. The most important control is limiting screen time and not every site allows parents to set hard limits.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 6 points 7 months ago (20 children)

There is a problem with social media addiction but the solution isn't restricting teens from it. The solution, as with most things, is education. Educating the kids, educating their parents and making sure they both have the tools available to them to make smart decisions.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Limiting total time spent on something is one of the parental control options. It isn't just blocking things 100%.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 point 7 months ago

Just having parental controls exist isn't an effective solution. Well implemented education is required to ensure it is used effectively.

parent

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

You can't educate someone out of an addiction. That's a fundamental misunderstanding about addiction...

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

No but you can educate their support networks and build other systems to help them work through their addiction.

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Or we could focus on preventing the addiction to begin with.

Great examples include making people wait until adulthood to smoke nicotine or cannabis, or to drink alcohol.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

You say that, but evidence shows its not a working solution. Its a piece of legislation that doesn't actually achieve anything close to the desired outcome of stopping a significant number of people under 16 from accessing social media. Further than that, there isn't an actual way to make this work without banning VPNs and implementing a Chinese style great internet filter.

Nicotine, Cannabis and alcohol are all banned in Australia for under 18s and you are kidding yourself if you think that has had any significant impact on stopping under 18s from getting their mits on them.

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Well, thats what you get when non-tech people try to regulate tech. At least we have correctly identified a problem, and are now trying to solve it.

Tech companies taking advantage of regulators lack of knowledge to continue abusing their customers is a different problem.

This solution might not work but we will learn and try something else or refine it until it does work, or until social media somehow isn't predatory and doesnt need the guard rails.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago*

I don't know how you solve problems, but I certainly don't go all in on the first highly expensive dumb idea I have without researching the fuck out of it first. If our politicians are listening to anything the the social media companies are saying and not assuming everything they say is an attempt to make more money for themselves then we have much bigger problems, namely the suckers we have elected.

Refining this solution is a terrible idea. It flat out doesn't work, its a non-starter. Prohibition has never worked effectively. The only path this leads to is pushing even more of Australian population's personal data into honey pots and breaking our financial system.

parent

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

Great examples include making people wait until adulthood to smoke nicotine or cannabis, or to drink alcohol.

I mean, I agree with you, but highschool is a thing... these laws are basically useless to my knowledge. I think about 50% of my grade had smoked weed by tenth grade, and half again were addicted to nicotine by 12th. The only reason I didn't fall victim to those (as many of my friends did), is because I was educated, by my parents, from an early age, about addiction and these substances. I never even tried them, because I knew better, thus never got addicted.

parent

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (7 children)

That's a bit like saying 'there is a problem with smack/nicotine/alcohol addiction, but the solution is not restriction, it's education'. You can educate all you want, but very clever people make a lot of money by saying 'fuck your education'.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

Restriction is fine if it's a workable solution, but this one is not and anyone with half a brain could see that from its very first announcement.

parent

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

But the idea that we just need education is ridiculous. It's the exact defence that the social media platforms espous, because they know it's bullshit and ineffective.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

What's your solution then? Great Chinese internet filter and banning VPNs?

parent

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Dunno, I'm not the one paid to come up with solutions. But, at the very least efforts like this teach kids that there is a problem. Like, yeah, we can easily circumvent the measures, but the gov still thinks it necessary to implement them.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Lol almost like education is the solution. Great work!

Efforts like this teach kids the law is the problem and teaches them to learn how to circumvent it, and in the mean time it also acts as a tracking tool for everyone else in Australia.

Its problems are numerous, benefits inconsequential and easily replicated through other means, and in your own words the only current solution is to teach kids there's a problem.

parent

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Right. But have you ever actually interact with a) children or b) addicts?. Both groups well known for being totally reasonable and receptive to logical arguments! Trying to persuade them that the thing they love is actually causing them harm is nigh on impossible. 'I'm not concerned about her welfare, I'm just being mean'. 'other kids may get addicted, but I'm fine, totally in control'. 'if it was bad there would be laws' Etc etc.

I'm not Australian, but I can at least referenced the attempt, and the court case in LA when telling the kid to put the tablet down. I'm not saying the law is the end of the matter, but just saying educate your kids is also far from the end, and is the line the social media companies emphasis because it moves the blame from them to parents

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 0 points 7 months ago

I'm not saying "just educate your kids". I'm saying instead of our government putting their effort into a pointless and likely quite harmful law, they should have looked into developing a useful education program for both parents and children that looks to raise the bar of how our population interacts with social media. Its not a short term solution but it is most certainly an effective long term solution. The current ban isn't even a good short term solution. It does nothing but 1) teach kids that our laws are dumb and should be bypassed, 2) disconnect disadvantaged and isolated kids from their support networks and 3) invade the privacy of all Australians.

Arguably banning the current social media business models altogether for everyone would be a better solution but that has similar issues to the current under 16s ban. How do even enforce it without also banning VPNs?

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

Surely there's always time for both the kids and parents to set aside to learn every new technology and the appropriate controls to restrict them.

And when someone says it makes far more sense to just not give their kids said technology until they are older, we have people like you arguing on behalf of the technology.

Aww poor little facebook, we dont want to hurt its fee-fees! Let's just give it another chance! I'm sure we can trust it this time if we just learn how to use it right!

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

How am I arguing on behalf of the technology? I want people to understand the technology so they know how to protect themselves effectively if they use it and so can make effective decisions on how their kids interact with it.

The technology sucks, but the technology is not going away and any fucking moron can bypass the age verification. If you think age verification is stopping teenagers from using tiktok then you're an idiot. I'm arguing that the implemented solution is not in fact anything close to a solution, and that pulling this thread and trying to implement something in the same vein that would actually work is a terrible idea because it fucks the privacy of every Australian on the internet, even more so than the current solution.

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Maybe, just maybe, parents shouldn't let their kids in awful places, and also awful places shouldnt let kids in. Turns out parental controls are bullshit, and the only real answer is RTFM or dont use it at all. A business and its customers dont exist without each other, so the blame is on both sides.

All that said, the government definitely could help the parental understand and controls side of thing too using regulation.

parent

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

If you set parental controls on your own teen's device, all you're doing is isolating them from their peers and making them the kid with the weird parent who doesn't let them post on tik tok.

Social media isn't what it was when we were growing up. It's designed to prey on them the same way slot machines create gambling addictions.

I'm no puritan but I do truly believe banning kids from social media and restricting teens at a legislative level would be a net benefit for society. Same as alcohol or drugs.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Prohibition didn't work for drugs either, so why would it work here? Why do we need to learn that lesson over and over again?

parent

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

Prohibition didn't work for drugs either

I didn't realize it was common for 14 year olds to drink alcohol and take heroin where you're from...

parent

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Underage drinking is still more common than it should be, despite strict laws. The point is, it doesn't do any good to go after the consumer, regardless of age. in order to make a meaningful impact, legislation would have to destroy or significantly neuter social media companies altogether, globally. Anything else will be a disappointment.

The more effective way to reduce these harms is through social/cultural change, but that's easier said than done.

parent

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

Underage drinking is still more common than it should be,

Sure, but it's significantly lower than legal drinking.

We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn't agree with so it didn't work.

I think you'd find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they're unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.

parent

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It will be effective if the prohibition takes the form of these companies no longer existing, at least in their current form, OR if the majority turn against them, making them irrelevant. An age gate won't do anything, not on its own

parent

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

lol are you serious

parent

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Limiting total time spent on something is one of the parental control options. It isn't just blocking things 100%.

parent

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip -2 points 7 months ago

"I only let my child smoke crack 3 hours a day"

parent

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

The issue with this argument is that many kids don’t have good parents, and some don’t have any parents at all.

Are those kids just supposed to be left to the mercy of bad actors because of their circumstances?

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

The current solution just cuts those at risk kids off from all modern support networks.

parent

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 months ago

On purporse to keep them trapped in abusive households with no Support

parent

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Guess we just let for profit companies and authoritarian states suck up all the data on everyone whether it works or not then.

parent

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

I didn’t say I approve of the current tactics, I’m just pointing out that circumstances can be more complex than simply saying ‘let the parents sort it out’ and leaving it at that.

parent

[–] Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Good intentions without the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent is still evil.

The main problem with all of these internet surveillance tools being marketed as ways to protect children is that people are engaging with them on that basis.

As far as I'm concerned they haven't done anything to establish that they actually intend to protect children or that this is a reasonable way to do it. This seems like a solution to a different problem that ignores all of the problems it creates.

Parents should be responsible for their children. A random website creator shouldn't have to be responsible for your children.

Websites aren't stores where people walk in off of a public street. They are services that people reach out to and engage with specifically and intentionally. If we can address the non-consensual non-intentionality part of internet tracking and surveillance a lot of this stuff goes away. So maybe rather than regulating the website to protect your children we should be regulating the website to protect consent.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone -1 points 7 months ago

I don't agree that the legislators left the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent out because they are evil, I think they left them out because they are ignorant. I think they are inexperienced with both technology and social media and have failed to appropriately engage people that might have helped them come up with a functional solution rather than an ineffective brute force.

I do however agree with everything else you've said above.

parent

[–] rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

And those guys are being led on by the evils.

parent

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone -2 points 7 months ago

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 45 points 7 months ago (8 children)

With a 70% non-compliance rate, that isn't entirely surprising.

Platforms are even less likely to implement real reforms that the author alludes to.

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago*

Similar thing happened where I live with porn. Recently passed a law requiring ID. Instead of complying, I just started going to different websites. No way am I giving up my identity to a sketchy porn site, no matter what the law says.

parent

[+] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -24 points 7 months ago (6 children)

I still think it's a step in the right direction. Once you make it illegal for children to use social media, you can start going after the platforms for knowingly manipulating children.

parent

[–] evilcultist@sh.itjust.works 49 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

Or we can just go after the platforms for knowingly manipulating everyone. And for their invasive data collection. This is probably one reason why Meta spent more on lobbying (primarily for age verification) than Boeing and Lockheed Martin did on lobbying last year. Once the kids are identified, no one gives a shit about the adults so the problem (for them) just fades away.

parent

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago*

... people have a tendency to underestimate how prone they are to manipulation. We should amend our constitutions to include freedom of thought as a fundamental human right.

parent

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You know what they say. Prohibition, works every time.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Prohibition is effective, it's just that it doesn't work for easy to manufacture compounds such as alcohol or marijuana. Every known human culture has independently discovered alcohol, and marijuana is a weed that is ready to smoke in its natural form.

As far as social media goes, my country has reached a point where TikTok and Facebook are preinstalled on every phone. If a parent buys their kid a phone and removes them, they will reinstall themselves after an automatic update. When you take into consideration the "streamlined" registration process, one can argue this is a means to target prepubescent children.

...I guess an 8 year old could download a VPN and steal their parents identification, but I feel like some form of prohibition would help.

parent

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

So you not only create a grey market you immediately inculcate the children into it.

Prohibition is generally ineffective in anything that doesn't involve violating someone else's rights.

If we're talking about getting rid of slopware I'm all for it. But this law. And other laws like it are an incredibly thinley veiled attempt to silence dissent by tying peoples online comments to their employment and subsequently housing and healthcare.

And I will never believe that this is done out concern for children.

parent

[–] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

The pre installed apps is the problem, make that illegal instead.

parent

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 43 points 7 months ago

Speak for yourself. I find quite a bit of joy in "I told you so".

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 41 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Key point: "Ultimately, the fundamental problem with age-gating is that it fails to address any of the root problems with our current online landscape – that is, the extractive business models and pernicious design features of mainstream tech companies. We all exist in a highly commercialised information ecosystem, rife with algorithmically amplified misinformation, scams, harmful content and AI slop. Children are particularly vulnerable to these issues but the reality is that it impacts everyone, even if you’re blissfully absent from Facebook or Instagram."

[–] imjustmsk@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago

They don't wanna solve the root problem, they just want to make the big tech companies happy as well as the people who is sayiing shit about social media happy, Age verification is their stupid answer to which translates to "We don't give a flying shit about kids"

parent

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

It wasn't designed to address online problems, it's purpose was to placate the mainstream media.