• misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • phar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

      • vegetvs@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

    • Someone8765210932@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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 …

      • theblips@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        How isn’t it possible? Just don’t give them phones, it’s not that complicated

        • cooperativesrock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

        • brandon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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”.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            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.

            • thatonecoder@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 hours ago

              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.

      • andallthat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        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.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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