I still am against the government making these decisions, especially for kids as old as 16.
This is for under-16s.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way? They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
Why shouldn’t the government make any decisions for this aspect of children’s safety, but all others are ok?
Some kids are mature enough to handle things like social media at 16
This is for under-16s. Under-16s are not 16. They are under 16.
Hence why I said “as old as.” Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way?
Because they’re not protecting their safety, they’re using it as an excuse to pass regressive policy. Kids under 16 will be struggling with a number of things, from gender identity to abusive parents, and social media can be the best way to get the sense of community they need.
They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
discipline children - this applies to parents, as it should
medication standards - tends to apply to doctors and parents
age ratings - at least in the US, this isn’t prohibitive, but informative
public drinking - this one does apply directly to kids, but IMO should instead apply to parents; if a child is drinking, that’s the parents’ fault
driving - driving is a privilege, so it’s not a restriction to only offer it to people of a certain age; kids can drive just fine on their parents’ property if they want, regardless of age (at least in the US, not sure about the UK)
gun ownership - this also directly applies to kids, but it’s more of a parental thing; if a parent want to let their kids “own” guns, that’s fine, the legal transfer just won’t be valid until they’re 18 (the parent would buy, then transfer to the kid)
The closest example you gave is gun ownership, but that goes back to cigarettes and alcohol. The restriction should be about consent (i.e. do they understand the hazards and responsibilities associated w/ the product), and kids can’t legally consent until they’re adults. Social media doesn’t exactly fall under that umbrella, you don’t need to consent to interact w/ social media.
But gun ownership is also interesting in another way: ID requirements are often stored when you purchase a gun (e.g. to run a background check or something), just like it would need to be for social media. I trust gun stores a lot more than social media companies because they don’t stand to profit from misusing your ID information.
Due to the privacy concerns and relative lack of risk to the public (meaning, a kid having access to a SM account won’t hurt others in anywhere near the same way as them having a car or gun), I just don’t see it being justifiable. This just sounds like conservative wankery to “protect the kids” while the real intent is attacking LGBT kids and allowing SM companies to hoover up data. And no, I don’t trust digital privacy laws to be all that effective here, since they’re only fined when they get caught, and it’s pretty easy to avoid getting caught.
Hence why I said “as old as.” Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.
There has to be a cutoff somewhere, otherwise you fall into the trap of “well 15.5 is basically 16, so 15.5 is fine. And 15 is basically 15.5 so that must be fine too. And I guess 14.5 is basically 15 so…”
We have age cutoffs for other things. Buying alcohol, cigarettes, driving, voting, etc.
Because they’re not protecting their safety,
Kids would be safer and mentally better off with less access to social media. You even agreed to this yourself in your first comment.
All those bullet points you listed are wrong. The state has laws surrounding what you can and can’t do. So laws do have a say.
You say disciplining children is up to the parents, but the reality is you can’t just do what you want. If your idea of disciplinary action to your child is starving them, the state will rightly intervene. Because the state has laws to protect children.
Privacy concerns are legitimate, that’s my biggest worry with this proposal, and certainly worth discussing. “We shouldn’t have laws to protect kids in this way, for some arbitrary reason I haven’t explained” is not.
Children should have safeguards. Parents are not always aware, technical enough to prevent, or caring enough to prevent kids from being damaged by social media (and boy does social media mess kids up). It is not my position that children of those parents should have to suffer unnecessarily.
There’s frequently a similar argument in the UK when it comes to free school dinners for poorer families. Some say “well the parents, no matter how poor, should pay, even if they have to make other cutbacks”. And while that makes sense, some don’t, so what do the “no state involvement” crowd want? The kids to be malnourished? I’d rather we accept that not all parents are good and build a baseline level of protection for all kids.
Kids would be safer and mentally better off with less access to social media.
Many kids, sure. And their parents should take responsibility to only introduce them to SM when they’re ready.
All those bullet points you listed are wrong. The state has laws surrounding what you can and can’t do. So laws do have a say.
I was clarifying which are limitations on children directly and which are limitations on parents.
Parents are not always aware, technical enough to prevent, or caring enough to prevent kids from being damaged by social media
That’s on the parents. If they’re going to be effective parents, they need to be aware of that stuff, and if they’re negligent enough to not bother, there should be consequences.
It is not my position that children of those parents should have to suffer unnecessarily.
Sure, but unfortunately you can’t charge someone until a crime is actually committed. Parents who neglect their kids should be charged, and the punishments should be severe enough that parents are motivated to protect their kids. “Neglect” doesn’t mean “allows their kid to use social media,” it means “didn’t step in when their child was suffering.”
A lot of kids can use social media just fine without negative repercussions. Some kids cannot. We shouldn’t be banning it for everyone just because some kids can’t handle it and their parents aren’t involved enough to notice.
Likewise, to enforce this, you need to ID everyone, and that’s an unacceptable privacy violation. Instead of violating everyone privacy to try to prevent some kids from having a negative interaction w/ social media, we should instead educate parents to know what the dangers are of SM, and charge those who don’t even try with neglect.
And their parents should take responsibility to only introduce them to SM when they’re ready.
But they don’t. So what’s your solution? To me “sorry kids, but you should be mentally damaged if your parents don’t have the inclination or ability to block social media” isn’t a solution.
You can’t just leave kids to be fucked over in the event their parents aren’t properly regulating them to the fullest.
We have laws preventing children from buying alcohol, but based on your thinking, we should get rid of those. After all, it’s the parents’ responsibility to ensure their children don’t get drunk…
That’s on the parents.
This is just going back to the “well it’s on the parents. And if kids get damaged in the process, that’s unfortunate, but society shouldn’t try to prevent it”
Charge parents with neglect if they should have been expected to notice and respond to problems. That should be a jailable offense. Having kids comes with an obligation to make an effort.
If problems are noticed and parents aren’t doing their job, kids should be relocated to families that will do their job and the parents jailed for child abuse.
We have laws preventing children from buying alcohol, but based on your thinking, we should get rid of those
I’m more saying the age limit is clumsy here since the real issue is understanding and consenting to risk. Businesses aren’t equipped to handle that, and parents can’t really regulate it, hence the age limit.
Social media is completely different though, since parents are in direct control of the devices their kids have access to at home, and what’s available on their home network. Parents have the power to handle this themselves, so they should be expected to do so. The government can (and probably should) provide education and tools, as well as provide some form of consequences if parents neglect that responsibility, but it shouldn’t take that role itself.
This is for under-16s.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way? They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
Why shouldn’t the government make any decisions for this aspect of children’s safety, but all others are ok?
This is for under-16s. Under-16s are not 16. They are under 16.
Hence why I said “as old as.” Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.
Because they’re not protecting their safety, they’re using it as an excuse to pass regressive policy. Kids under 16 will be struggling with a number of things, from gender identity to abusive parents, and social media can be the best way to get the sense of community they need.
The closest example you gave is gun ownership, but that goes back to cigarettes and alcohol. The restriction should be about consent (i.e. do they understand the hazards and responsibilities associated w/ the product), and kids can’t legally consent until they’re adults. Social media doesn’t exactly fall under that umbrella, you don’t need to consent to interact w/ social media.
But gun ownership is also interesting in another way: ID requirements are often stored when you purchase a gun (e.g. to run a background check or something), just like it would need to be for social media. I trust gun stores a lot more than social media companies because they don’t stand to profit from misusing your ID information.
Due to the privacy concerns and relative lack of risk to the public (meaning, a kid having access to a SM account won’t hurt others in anywhere near the same way as them having a car or gun), I just don’t see it being justifiable. This just sounds like conservative wankery to “protect the kids” while the real intent is attacking LGBT kids and allowing SM companies to hoover up data. And no, I don’t trust digital privacy laws to be all that effective here, since they’re only fined when they get caught, and it’s pretty easy to avoid getting caught.
There has to be a cutoff somewhere, otherwise you fall into the trap of “well 15.5 is basically 16, so 15.5 is fine. And 15 is basically 15.5 so that must be fine too. And I guess 14.5 is basically 15 so…”
We have age cutoffs for other things. Buying alcohol, cigarettes, driving, voting, etc.
Kids would be safer and mentally better off with less access to social media. You even agreed to this yourself in your first comment.
All those bullet points you listed are wrong. The state has laws surrounding what you can and can’t do. So laws do have a say.
You say disciplining children is up to the parents, but the reality is you can’t just do what you want. If your idea of disciplinary action to your child is starving them, the state will rightly intervene. Because the state has laws to protect children.
Privacy concerns are legitimate, that’s my biggest worry with this proposal, and certainly worth discussing. “We shouldn’t have laws to protect kids in this way, for some arbitrary reason I haven’t explained” is not.
Children should have safeguards. Parents are not always aware, technical enough to prevent, or caring enough to prevent kids from being damaged by social media (and boy does social media mess kids up). It is not my position that children of those parents should have to suffer unnecessarily.
There’s frequently a similar argument in the UK when it comes to free school dinners for poorer families. Some say “well the parents, no matter how poor, should pay, even if they have to make other cutbacks”. And while that makes sense, some don’t, so what do the “no state involvement” crowd want? The kids to be malnourished? I’d rather we accept that not all parents are good and build a baseline level of protection for all kids.
Many kids, sure. And their parents should take responsibility to only introduce them to SM when they’re ready.
I was clarifying which are limitations on children directly and which are limitations on parents.
That’s on the parents. If they’re going to be effective parents, they need to be aware of that stuff, and if they’re negligent enough to not bother, there should be consequences.
Sure, but unfortunately you can’t charge someone until a crime is actually committed. Parents who neglect their kids should be charged, and the punishments should be severe enough that parents are motivated to protect their kids. “Neglect” doesn’t mean “allows their kid to use social media,” it means “didn’t step in when their child was suffering.”
A lot of kids can use social media just fine without negative repercussions. Some kids cannot. We shouldn’t be banning it for everyone just because some kids can’t handle it and their parents aren’t involved enough to notice.
Likewise, to enforce this, you need to ID everyone, and that’s an unacceptable privacy violation. Instead of violating everyone privacy to try to prevent some kids from having a negative interaction w/ social media, we should instead educate parents to know what the dangers are of SM, and charge those who don’t even try with neglect.
But they don’t. So what’s your solution? To me “sorry kids, but you should be mentally damaged if your parents don’t have the inclination or ability to block social media” isn’t a solution.
You can’t just leave kids to be fucked over in the event their parents aren’t properly regulating them to the fullest.
We have laws preventing children from buying alcohol, but based on your thinking, we should get rid of those. After all, it’s the parents’ responsibility to ensure their children don’t get drunk…
This is just going back to the “well it’s on the parents. And if kids get damaged in the process, that’s unfortunate, but society shouldn’t try to prevent it”
Charge parents with neglect if they should have been expected to notice and respond to problems. That should be a jailable offense. Having kids comes with an obligation to make an effort.
If problems are noticed and parents aren’t doing their job, kids should be relocated to families that will do their job and the parents jailed for child abuse.
I’m more saying the age limit is clumsy here since the real issue is understanding and consenting to risk. Businesses aren’t equipped to handle that, and parents can’t really regulate it, hence the age limit.
Social media is completely different though, since parents are in direct control of the devices their kids have access to at home, and what’s available on their home network. Parents have the power to handle this themselves, so they should be expected to do so. The government can (and probably should) provide education and tools, as well as provide some form of consequences if parents neglect that responsibility, but it shouldn’t take that role itself.