• Melt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    As long as the social media’s primary goal is causing addiction and clout chasing behavior, the age limit should be 60

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Difficult debate. Not sure the traditional media are so much better. I personally think that educating teens to handle whatever medias would be preferable to a blanked ban. It’s going to be interesting to see how it will evolve.

    • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 minutes ago

      Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.

      Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 minutes ago

        Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe. And life, in general, is filled with bullies.

    • boreengreen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      How do we get more mass surveillance? I know! Lets make up a reason why we should implement it. Children!

  • levzzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    50 minutes ago

    I think 13 is fine, even though it’s not really enforced anywhere. Wouldn’t give phones to toddlers though…

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    At whatever age they want to.

    holy shit why would you deprive kids of (often their only way to have any) social contacts and think you’re the good guys

  • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I am becoming convinced that trying to establish a generally applicable age limit is the wrong way to go about these types of things, but instead we must focus on identifying the specific developmental markers which represent each phase and focus on those. We should teach parents to “read” their children’s progress and determine dynamically, based on both general data and individual empirical observations. Some children may not be ready for Social Media even at 16, while others who have more natural social inclinations may be hampered by a delayed introduction of these realities.

    We’ve been treating the subject of children like they’re a bulk product, but they’re just as individually specific as any other human being. They just lack a fully defined brain structure and the contextualisation and understanding which come from life experience, but I doubt anyone could argue they don’t have a personality or cognitive uniqueness.

    Note: I am not talking about the age of consent! That one should always be a thing!

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Because nostr and the fediverse care so much about what they think. I’m absolutely certain that every fediverse instance will immediately block any Australians under 16 years old. /s