Following global pushes for age assurance by governments, Persona is increasingly being used by major online platforms to carry out biometric age checks.
Even if op’s case was satirical, it is quite ageist honestly. It is the difference between freedom and submission. Such outdated statements about increasing the common age is just a fascist disguise - minors which includes teens have less and less rights just because the belief that children shall be protected by bans is acceptable.
I don’t think that’s the solution though, kids (including teens to some extent) can be on the internet but it requires better parenting. It’s better to monitor what they are doing online until they are like 15 or 16, maybe 17 if you have a really good reason too. Limit screen time, be around to answer questions your kid has about what they might see.
Little kids though? Absolutely should be off the internet. Anyone under 10 shouldn’t be on the internet period in my opinion. 10-12 is kinda a gray zone to me where it’s definitely up to the parents and if they think their child is ready.
My nephew has a new baby. Her parents are constantly waving their phones in her face; sending pics back and forth; generally doing ‘millenial things’ with their phones when not actively attending the baby. Then proceed to get all freaked out when the baby expresses interest or curiosity in the phone.
Kids mimic their parents behavior and interests. If you want kids with healthy internet use, you have to have parents model healthy internet use.
Also since they weren’t allowed on the internet till they were 21, those 21 year olds won’t know how to act on the internet. So now there’s 21 year olds roaming around who will need to figure all that shit out. They might get other aspects of being an adult but the internet will be completely alien.
It’s like when I saw people saying kids shouldn’t be allowed into the grocery store because someone was annoyed that kids didn’t know how to behave there yet. You just create a new and larger problem where adults don’t know how to act.
Not really. Free speech is a cultural construct. It doesn’t exist without a huge swath of pre-agreed norms regarding rights, speech, freedom, … I’ll have you know, there are modern philosophers who argue against human rights. They would say human rights language pretends to be objective and universal, but it floats without a metaphysical anchor (unlike in the past) and in practice they only exist if a sovereign power recognizes them.
It is far more complicated. The brain develops slowly while social media provides constant dopamine hits leading to doom scrolling and the part of the brain that is tasked with hitting the brakes is just not there
Doom go outside and doom touch grass. Then later, doom socialize with your family before doom dinner. Cap off the night with a good doom book before doom dreaming the night away.
Yes social media is a problem, however that alone does not justify banning everyone under 21 from using the entire internet. As the person who I replied to said they wanted.
Social media is its own problem that’s needs regulations to come under control.
If people cared about “the children” they wouldn’t let them on the Internet until they were 21.
If people cared about humanity they wouldn’t allow “the algorithms” to exist or let social media or news media exist they way it does now.
Yeah, that’s only for the people that think they care, but are actually ageist and discriminate.
Protecting children comes in hand with protecting humanity. The sole existence of predatory algorithms, and other shit makes age meaningless.
People 18 and over are adults. I know the US somehow forbids adults from drinking but I don’t think more countries should dilute people’s rights.
Even if op’s case was satirical, it is quite ageist honestly. It is the difference between freedom and submission. Such outdated statements about increasing the common age is just a fascist disguise - minors which includes teens have less and less rights just because the belief that children shall be protected by bans is acceptable.
I don’t think that’s the solution though, kids (including teens to some extent) can be on the internet but it requires better parenting. It’s better to monitor what they are doing online until they are like 15 or 16, maybe 17 if you have a really good reason too. Limit screen time, be around to answer questions your kid has about what they might see.
Little kids though? Absolutely should be off the internet. Anyone under 10 shouldn’t be on the internet period in my opinion. 10-12 is kinda a gray zone to me where it’s definitely up to the parents and if they think their child is ready.
My nephew has a new baby. Her parents are constantly waving their phones in her face; sending pics back and forth; generally doing ‘millenial things’ with their phones when not actively attending the baby. Then proceed to get all freaked out when the baby expresses interest or curiosity in the phone.
Kids mimic their parents behavior and interests. If you want kids with healthy internet use, you have to have parents model healthy internet use.
Also since they weren’t allowed on the internet till they were 21, those 21 year olds won’t know how to act on the internet. So now there’s 21 year olds roaming around who will need to figure all that shit out. They might get other aspects of being an adult but the internet will be completely alien.
It’s like when I saw people saying kids shouldn’t be allowed into the grocery store because someone was annoyed that kids didn’t know how to behave there yet. You just create a new and larger problem where adults don’t know how to act.
The internet has been out for less time than some people have been alive. Are we sure we, as a species, know how to be an adult on the internet yet?
We arent behaving appropriately IRL so i am not sure why youre setting higher standards for being online.
Free speech has been out for as long as humanity has existed, and every attempt at limiting it has ended badly.
Not really. Free speech is a cultural construct. It doesn’t exist without a huge swath of pre-agreed norms regarding rights, speech, freedom, … I’ll have you know, there are modern philosophers who argue against human rights. They would say human rights language pretends to be objective and universal, but it floats without a metaphysical anchor (unlike in the past) and in practice they only exist if a sovereign power recognizes them.
It is far more complicated. The brain develops slowly while social media provides constant dopamine hits leading to doom scrolling and the part of the brain that is tasked with hitting the brakes is just not there
Doom go outside and doom touch grass. Then later, doom socialize with your family before doom dinner. Cap off the night with a good doom book before doom dreaming the night away.
Yes social media is a problem, however that alone does not justify banning everyone under 21 from using the entire internet. As the person who I replied to said they wanted.
Social media is its own problem that’s needs regulations to come under control.
I faintly recall there were then a few people who criticized Gore’s idea of opening up the Internet to the public.
Yeah, we should also ban anyone under 25 from voting too! Brain isn’t fully developed! Reeeee!
And anyone over 50, brain is barely functional after 30 years of propaganda.