Comment on Norwegian government to set 15-year age limit for using social media

• clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • 0x0@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    and Americans are fine.

    Right… the land of the free is clearly an example for everyone, the epitome of societal progress.

    source
• sandbox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Sorry, but that logic is absolute and total bullshit.

  Adults are extremely bad at making decisions in their best interests too. Why does the government have to oppress kids to protect them, but you when the exact same logic is applied to adults, that’s a problem?

  It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong. Kids should have autonomy too.

  source

  • kava@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Kids are disadvantaged in a number of ways compared to adults

    • the obvious factor is that the prefrontal cortex is not developed. they simply do not have the capacity to make fully informed decisions.
    • another factor is the simple lack of experience. when you look at an 8 year old to an adult, that adult has been through a lot of shit in their life. they learned a thing or two and that gives him the ability to sniff out bullshit much more easily than a child. think of it as the bullshit immune system
    • kids don’t have the resources that adults do. they typically don’t have access to credit cards so the free things on the internet attract them more easily. websites (really apps these days) prey on this fact.

    source
  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s you who was suggesting adults of certain age should be banned from social media, not me. You don’t get to then say ‘It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong.’ in the next sentence. You’re being a hypocrite.

    There’s a good reason we don’t let kids eat sand, hit their friend, drive cars, vote, watch porn, drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. Their brains are undeveloped. They don’t know any better.

    source

    • sandbox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      My point was that anyone sensible would immediately see the problem with my suggestion, and that would perhaps lead them to understand why enforcing the same rule against kids is wrong.

      And again, I’m sorry, but your reasoning is weak as fuck. Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?

        I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won’t develop further, then there’s not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).

        That said, I’m against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Cokes@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        If anything, it would be far better to ban people above a certain age from social media.

        Yeah, sure. That screams that you don’t advertise, but rather oppose this idea. You are backpedaling and moving the goal posts. It would be much more adult to accept the flaw of your first comment.

        source
      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?

        That’s a perfectly valid discussion to be had.

        source