this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
98 points (86.0% liked)
Technology
87417 readers
3868 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I support guidance and recommendation of age groups and time limits etc for guardians to consult. Just as having a drinking age never stopped those under it from drinking. Realistically this will be far less effective but more intrusive and abusive.
Give the guardians the tools, time, and guidance to do their jobs. There's definitely no legitimate use for laws and legislation restricting it though. The countries that have already passed the laws are already proving it doesn't work. Why anyone else thinks it will be different or that they can do better is beyond me. Unless of course they don't think that and it's never been about that.
Yes it absolutely does.
I think laws could be used to put some stronger responsibilities on the parents. Unfortunately, some of them don't care whether their children are on social media or what they do on there at all. So when something happens to a child who was too young to join social media, parents would bear some responsibility for that. Guidance is great, but not everyone will take that offer. I'm not in favor of abolishing the minimum drinking age (which is 14 here btw) either.
The parents who wouldn't be responsible. Aren't going to be responsible just because there's laws. They never have been. And realistically it's just going to punish otherwise decent ones who due to circumstances beyond their knowledge failed.
Make considerations for child neglect and endangerment charges considering such things when it's appropriate. That's workable/palatable. But the state policing basic social interaction is dystopian as fuck and screaming for abuse. No thanks. The state isn't worthy of that sort of trust in the first place. Not one of them. Leave it to the families and communities, focus on helping them to succeed. It's cheaper and more effective.
that's exactly what will happen but in a worse form, where everyone will be subjected to it, not only parents that were or not unwilling to deal with this.
Exactly. It's all a farce of a pretext on its face. But far too many people believe the state not only can be neutral but benevolent. Something which has never been born out in the long term. And are looking for the state to save them from a system built to serve those that would be the state. It's the height of fantasy.