Meta is supporting proposals to establish a common Digital Majority Age across EU member states, whereby parents need to approve their younger teens' access to digital services, including social media.
I’ve been thinking about it and here’s my proposal:
total ban on hosting/streaming videos with kids below 16. Anyone uploading content with kids is immediately banned. Platforms hosting content with kids are prosecuted.
treat mobile phones like cigarettes. Parents giving phones to children < 16 are fined. If you want to track your kid get him a smart watch.
a heavy handed approach, but I don’t see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.
slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that’s probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.
private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.
hey people, this could work!
and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
Cell phone bans are now common in schools. More and more research shows phones are bad for development.
I’ve been thinking about it and here’s my proposal:
Who’s with me?
a heavy handed approach, but I don’t see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.
slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that’s probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.
private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.
hey people, this could work!
and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.
Pagers. Kids under 21 can only get pagers.
They get within two meters of a smartphone, both kid, parents, and whoever owns the smartphone go straight to jail.
No. I want freedom, not this BS
No one.
I would be surprised if majority of people couldn’t live without watching kids on youtube but who knows, maybe you’re right.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
Cell phone bans are now common in schools. More and more research shows phones are bad for development.
https://www.newsweek.com/overcoming-our-denial-about-smartphones-effect-kids-opinion-1926025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000622
But you want to give them to kids why exactly?