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.
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.