this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
1278 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
69726 readers
3262 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Teenagers should not be on social media. I rest my case.
I hearby petition an amendment for an expansion of the child protective laws to widen the definition of abuse, neglect, and reckless abandonment of children to include:
"letting children browse without ad blockers"
Fixed.
They shouldn't, but also PSA to any parents but modern parenting advice typically is to let your kids use social media if they choose, and guide them through the social and emotional difficulties with good communication. Don't blanket ban it because they'll just use it anyways without guidance, and be unprepared the moment they turn 18.
It's a case of: 99.9% of kids are smoking cigarettes so yours will too. Better to show them how to use a weekly cigar without inhaling, than just ban it which won't work.
Not just teenagers. Facebook and quite a few others should outright be banned. Not only they are scientifically proven to be a mental health catastrophe and a political threat to democracy, it's also pretty clear now that both these things are part of their design, not bugs or unintended emerging properties.
Facebook actively contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, and did basically nothing about it because they didnt want to hire more moderators that spoke the language, so that they could adequately remove pro-genocidal content
That's sounds like blaming teens for the actions of the adults behind Facebook.
That's a fallacy. Teenagers are the victims here. So I'm obviously blaming greedy corporations, lack of good parenting and proper regulation from authorities.
So teens should be allowed to go anywhere adults make it dangerous because it's the adults' faults? I hope you don't have kids.
You will all make fine parents if you choose. Just slapping in some positivity and love here lol.
Ok, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Arguing like this is kinda pointless.
I don't think it will be possible to get them off social media (or the internet in general), so you need to find ways to make it work.
E.g. minors can not be advertised to, no algorithmic content, no doom-scrolling, and heightened data protection. I think teenager should get access to as much as possible to reduce the "risk" of them trying to go around it. "Their" version of social media might even be the superior one in the end.
If the world wasn't on fire at the moment, people could calmly discuss possible solutions and propose laws in every country to actually protect their children from e.g. the stuff mentioned in the linked article. Sadly, this isn't going to happen ...
The thing is that social media have an oversized influence that makes a calm discussion of possible solutions very hard to have. When the US recognized the implications of letting a foreign power exert so much control over their people, they tried banning TikTok, or breaking it up so their US operation would be under US control.
Facebook should also be split and its EU operation purchased by a European company, that could then spend more time implementing the other changes you mention (doom-scrolling, data protection) and less time lobbying to get all these pesky EU regulations removed.
And yes, it does feel heartbreaking to count the US as a threat to national security, but China has never threatened to annex Greenland with military force, so what would have been paranoia and extreme anti-americanism last year is now the sensible, level-headed thing to do.
How isn't it possible? Just don't give them phones, it's not that complicated
Ok, when was the last time you saw a working payphone? 2010? It isn't safe for teens to not have a phone because payphones don't exist any more.
You can walk into any Walmart in America and buy a cheap smartphone for $30.
This approach is even less effective than "just don't give them drugs".
Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you're going to have a bad time.
Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don't need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you'll have it with you everywhere.
It's possible, but it's going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who's paying even a little bit of attention.
The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Source: am a parent.
You don't need a data plan if you can access wifi. There is public wifi and I don't think most parents even know how to check the devices using their home wifi.
Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.
Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.
Prohibition works... temporarily. If you believe your child is not ready for SM, then prohibiting them from it until they are can work.
So yes, have a mature conversation with your kids, set boundaries, etc. That's something that should happen between a parent and a child, not between a government and a child.
I actually agree with you, especially in the last sentence. Knowing the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, governments are definitely willing to manipulate children through control of information.
Look, maybe it's true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that's an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we're going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.
Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.
You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with "parents should do a better job". It didn't work for obesity, it didn't work for child traffic deaths, it didn't work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn't work for school shootings, it didn't work for measles, and it's not going to work for this either.
I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:
No one should