> Social media bans suppress kids’ access to information, including information that’s essential to their development, identity formation, and socialization, especially during adolescence.
Indeed children were deprived of their potential for development for all of humanity up until the early 2000s, thank god we finally closed the gap with social media algorithms...
The problem is might see the solution is to not have such laws in the first place if they are not enforced. But another solution is to give the government more and more and more enforcement power which will, eventually, be used against the people instead of for them. Just as bad is all these enforcement people have to continually justify their pay so the bar for what constitutes an infraction starts dropping in order to keep the prosecution rates up.
Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits
That depends on the purpose of the individual law. Laws against murder must be enforced as much as possible, but the war on drugs has done a lot of unnecessary damage through excessive enforcement.
You cannot talk about absurd absasing laws and fixate about enforcement. It is excusing satanism. It is diverting attention. It is "if dystopia is to happen, it would be defensible that it be done seriously".
With the approximately zero quality of current administrations the difference between "legitimate" and "legal" has become bewildering and well beyond damaging.
Everyone knew it when these sort of measures were first discussed here way back when and everyone knew that they would be bypassed as soon as they were implemented.
But politicians, lobbies, and everyone else who gains from this do not care.
Im not surprised, the Plattforms have 0 interest in kids not accessing. If they could make money from this i would bet my left Hand 99.5% of kids would not manage to enter.
FaceID works pretty good. I dont see any law of physics / math forbidding a proper biometric, privacy compliant age filter to work at scale.
If this is the cokamany bullshit Child Safety Act that the AU Gov put in place with the social media ban and age verification shit™ -- I knew this would happens inevitably. The whole thing was stupid as fuck. Not a single one of us that _actually_ work in this industry were consulted to ask whether we _thought_ this was a good idea, no sir. -- Be careful my fellow Aussies, or we end up letting the government build the Great Wall of Australa!
I'm sorry, but what I have to say to that is simple this; Parent should teach their children better, teach them virtues, how the world works, protect them from the horrors that exists. Love and nurture them. Not wash their hands and shrug and expect some lousy politicians to protect their children. Geez fuck.
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
It's not entrance forbidden to libraries and bookstores though, it's closer to entrance forbidden to bars and casinos. Modern social media is quite low value and quite predatory.
I think that depends a lot on the age of the child in question. I absolutely would simply forbid an 8 year old from entering a library or book store with neo nazi writings or aum shinrikyo literature or Ted Kaczynki’s manifesto easily accessible. Trying to provide appropriate context for everything at that age is simply not feasible.
-- You have treated the «8 year old» as a newborn without previous protective formation - so a sad case already;
-- You have defended barring access to all decent libraries and bookstores - which in their hundreds of thousands of volumes do have lots of trash and biased texts. They also contain the good ones.
Are these authors bought and paid for by big tech? This assertion, with nothing to back it up and zero mention of the negative side effects, calls the entire article’s legitimacy into doubt for me:
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.
I will not post the hundreds of channels I follow on YT for privacy reasons, but you can check yourself (if you never did that): think of some cultural matter of the past or the present, in video form, and it will be on YT.
Already that the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale etc. have an important presence there is telling of the foolishness to block access. Add things like the "Curiosity Show" and Julius Sumner Miller and all daily published new divulgation, and you can see how blocking access to kids and students is near the most stupid idea ever.
Sorry, I still cannot tell what is the central thrust of what you’re saying. I’m also having a hard time telling the difference between what is quoted from the article and where you’re quoting yourself looking at that comment that you linked.
My general position is that assuming that children ages of 10 to 16 _need_ to be or _must_ be online to communicate with their peers, without considering the negative impact on developing brains, is intellectually dishonest at best.
Where? See the start of the submitted (which does not mention youtube, but if you follow the news it is there):
> In July, France joined Australia in restricting minors from accessing social media—barring children under 15 from major platforms, before the ban was blocked by the country’s top court on human rights grounds. The UK aims to forbid kids under 16 from accessing Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms in early 2027, and the EU has announced its own plan to prohibit social media for kids under 15
I suppose Wikipedia needs to go to the dark net for allowing British kids (and adults) to read it freely. One might reckon that reading Wikipedia would be good for kids (and adults), but I suppose the Soviet Uni... err. disagrees. I mean, sarcasm aside, that is the real, fundamental danger here; VPN use has already seen big increases in Australia and the UK, and the dark net is the last place no one should go but may have to. Soon in the EU too, I suppose.
> Social media bans suppress kids’ access to information, including information that’s essential to their development, identity formation, and socialization, especially during adolescence.
Indeed children were deprived of their potential for development for all of humanity up until the early 2000s, thank god we finally closed the gap with social media algorithms...
Is this sponsored by Meta?
Yes, it is. I don't want to live in a country where everything is illegal but not enforced (until someone in power dislikes you).
The problem is might see the solution is to not have such laws in the first place if they are not enforced. But another solution is to give the government more and more and more enforcement power which will, eventually, be used against the people instead of for them. Just as bad is all these enforcement people have to continually justify their pay so the bar for what constitutes an infraction starts dropping in order to keep the prosecution rates up.
Should young people be surveilled to ensure they don't smoke weed, or is it okay if smoking weed is illegal but some of them do it anyway and hide it?
Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits
That depends on the purpose of the individual law. Laws against murder must be enforced as much as possible, but the war on drugs has done a lot of unnecessary damage through excessive enforcement.
You cannot talk about absurd absasing laws and fixate about enforcement. It is excusing satanism. It is diverting attention. It is "if dystopia is to happen, it would be defensible that it be done seriously".
With the approximately zero quality of current administrations the difference between "legitimate" and "legal" has become bewildering and well beyond damaging.
I'm sure big tabaco said the same thing.
Of course it doesn't work.
Everyone knew it when these sort of measures were first discussed here way back when and everyone knew that they would be bypassed as soon as they were implemented.
But politicians, lobbies, and everyone else who gains from this do not care.
Why do you infer that it doesn't work?
Im not surprised, the Plattforms have 0 interest in kids not accessing. If they could make money from this i would bet my left Hand 99.5% of kids would not manage to enter.
FaceID works pretty good. I dont see any law of physics / math forbidding a proper biometric, privacy compliant age filter to work at scale.
If this is the cokamany bullshit Child Safety Act that the AU Gov put in place with the social media ban and age verification shit™ -- I knew this would happens inevitably. The whole thing was stupid as fuck. Not a single one of us that _actually_ work in this industry were consulted to ask whether we _thought_ this was a good idea, no sir. -- Be careful my fellow Aussies, or we end up letting the government build the Great Wall of Australa!
> [au g]ov
The attempt is everywhere - probably not just in the undead "western world".
Can I remind you that the thing out in the australian government uttered something like "a hill to die on"? What were the exact words?
Why are not people outpspoken on the bestiality of those things? To stress the total difference that separates from those things?
I'm sorry, but what I have to say to that is simple this; Parent should teach their children better, teach them virtues, how the world works, protect them from the horrors that exists. Love and nurture them. Not wash their hands and shrug and expect some lousy politicians to protect their children. Geez fuck.
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
> protect their children
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
It's not entrance forbidden to libraries and bookstores though, it's closer to entrance forbidden to bars and casinos. Modern social media is quite low value and quite predatory.
I think that depends a lot on the age of the child in question. I absolutely would simply forbid an 8 year old from entering a library or book store with neo nazi writings or aum shinrikyo literature or Ted Kaczynki’s manifesto easily accessible. Trying to provide appropriate context for everything at that age is simply not feasible.
-- You have treated the «8 year old» as a newborn without previous protective formation - so a sad case already;
-- You have defended barring access to all decent libraries and bookstores - which in their hundreds of thousands of volumes do have lots of trash and biased texts. They also contain the good ones.
Are these authors bought and paid for by big tech? This assertion, with nothing to back it up and zero mention of the negative side effects, calls the entire article’s legitimacy into doubt for me:
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
> [kids] do not need to be online
They ___must___ at the same level as they must read. See posts elsewhere in this page.
--
Oh, a sniper. I will be even more clear: either the kids get cultivated, or they are wasted and waste. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
I will not post the hundreds of channels I follow on YT for privacy reasons, but you can check yourself (if you never did that): think of some cultural matter of the past or the present, in video form, and it will be on YT.
Already that the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale etc. have an important presence there is telling of the foolishness to block access. Add things like the "Curiosity Show" and Julius Sumner Miller and all daily published new divulgation, and you can see how blocking access to kids and students is near the most stupid idea ever.
Sorry, I still cannot tell what is the central thrust of what you’re saying. I’m also having a hard time telling the difference between what is quoted from the article and where you’re quoting yourself looking at that comment that you linked.
My general position is that assuming that children ages of 10 to 16 _need_ to be or _must_ be online to communicate with their peers, without considering the negative impact on developing brains, is intellectually dishonest at best.
Nope, they're not blocked from youtube, they simple cannot have accounts. Nor are are providers required to check ID.
> they're not blocked from youtube
Where? See the start of the submitted (which does not mention youtube, but if you follow the news it is there):
> In July, France joined Australia in restricting minors from accessing social media—barring children under 15 from major platforms, before the ban was blocked by the country’s top court on human rights grounds. The UK aims to forbid kids under 16 from accessing Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms in early 2027, and the EU has announced its own plan to prohibit social media for kids under 15
I suppose Wikipedia needs to go to the dark net for allowing British kids (and adults) to read it freely. One might reckon that reading Wikipedia would be good for kids (and adults), but I suppose the Soviet Uni... err. disagrees. I mean, sarcasm aside, that is the real, fundamental danger here; VPN use has already seen big increases in Australia and the UK, and the dark net is the last place no one should go but may have to. Soon in the EU too, I suppose.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...