parents need to "parent" their children. sorry but children are a LOT of work, and parents need to stop assuming that school, TV or the internet is a easy babysitter. you can ban whatever you like, but there are still people in the park with needles in their arms. you need to have the parents EDUCATED on how to monitor what their children are doing. is it spying on your kid? YES and we need to normalize that. maybe some people will have to give up the overtime that pays for that vacation every year. some might have to buy a smaller house so someone can work only 3 or 4 days a week. might have to give up a new smartphone every year. might have to give up A LOT MORE so your children grow up the way you want them to by being there.
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
There will be loopholes and those loopholes will be exploited by children. The intention is good but the solution is the usual "we don't know what to do so let's ban it". There is a rule or law for everything in Denmark.
Would you say alcohol ban for children has loopholes and those loopholes are exploited by children enough to warrant discussion? How authorative should it be, more than the alcohol ban or the framework we have is ok enough?
We should remove all laws that has loopholes! No traffic laws, minimum police, total anarchy 💥
Maybe instead of banning social media there should be some sort of consensus as to how social media should operate. Get rid of algorithms designed to become addicting or push products harmful to people. Reduce advertisements. Don't push content that's from around the world, focus on things immediately connected to someone's life like posts from friends and family not Rogan and Tate.
Sounds like someone is trying to avoid regulating social media platforms.
How about "User must be subscribed to see an activity" so the algo doesn't just roll you into a rabbit hole.
Subscriptions can still recommend other subscriptions and people can share stuff from their subscriptions but liking something shouldn't qualify.
“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’ve been too naive. We’ve left children’s digital lives to platforms that never had their wellbeing in mind. We must move from digital captivity to community.”
Powerful words.
Small question: Why are you giving these horrible platforms more leverage over their digital captives instead of just banning them or outlawing the worst parts of their business models?
Seems to me like the wrong way to address the problem. But I guess it's easier to ban people with no political voice from a vital tool for social connectivity than it is to hold the large companies hosting those tools accountable for socially-damaging practices.
great way to teach kids to keep secrets, break the law, and access the internet discretely, though.
Yeah, this worries me a lot.
What happens to the queer teenager who has no friends at school who understand them, can't tell their homophobic parents, but found vital and life-saving connections online.
I recognize that social media can be a tool for harm, but it can also be a tool for a lot of good. We should be working to teach teens to engage with online spaces in a way that's healthy, not just shutting off access altogether.
…and they still refuse to properly educate themselves, parents, students, and people overall about how to remain safe online.
Let me guess, we're I Danish (or when this shit spreads to my country) I would have identify my accounts to the government and or corporations.
I think it's clear that there are problems with children's use of social media today.
But a blanket ban is not the way to go. Especially since it will most likely just lead to age verification and all the issues that brings.
Social media is to kids today what cigarettes were to teens last century. Might even be better compared to the Radium marketing blitz that poisoned so many while making a few very rich.
Social media is way worse, and it's not even close.
That's an apples to oranges comparison. One is physical health and other mental health and both are hard to quantify
It's not me who made the comparison.
"Way worse" is a comparison
Why are you ignoring the comment that I was responding to?
I'm not, he's not comparing cigarettes to social media, he's saying that social media has replaced cigarettes as the vice of choice for young people.
Hes does compare it to Radium poisoning though.
He literally makes an analogous comparison in the first sentence to cigarettes and social media.
So I say again, why were you ignoring the obvious comparisons that I was referencing with my reply?
And for the record, I completely disagree with your apples vs oranges dismissal.
They are not apples and oranges, as both cigarettes and social media use are directly linked to statistically significant poor health outcomes in people who use them.
But, if you really have a problem with that comparison, you should have replied to the person who introduced that lengthy line of conversation and not just people quickly responding to it.
As usual, here are my (extremely) unpopular opinions: 1: This ban is made to extend to smartphones for children overall, allowing some abuse situations to be carried out without risk. Furthermore, this might (later) extend to some workers, women overall, then lower “castes” and classes. 2: This is another way for Chat Control to also be implemented later, by setting the roots for such.
Oh, another thing: using age as a metric is darn stupid — aren't some of the worst leaders actually quite… elderly?
I think its simpler than that, its not about banning children its about identifying everyone else
It is about both. If you can control the information and communication capabilities children get, you can do whatever with them.
100% on your last point. We need IQ and EQ tests to decide who gets access to sharp social objects.
Denmark following Australia’s lead, who are following the UKs version.
The fact that these massive companies that have way too much sway over politicians already are only vaguely, fighting this, concerns me. Feels like this is more about feeding everyone into the facial recognition databases, with the added bonus of censorship
I think kids shouldn't have smart phones at all. Banning from social media is the wrong way to handle it. Parent's need to be held accountable for allowing their kids to have too much phone time. It rots the brain. There are way too many kids that can't read, do basic math, or do anything by themselves without the help of AI. It's ridiculous.
Smart phones are by them self fine. It's no different then when we were kids with a gameboy and a cheap prepaid flip phone
Like what's actually fucking the problem with smart phones? It's a camera phone and Gameboy all in one. There's nothing inherently problematic with that
Every problem people always bitch about are various apps and companies and have absolutely fucking shit and all to do inherently with the phone it self.
Proper parenting, and bitch slapping the dipshits companies shoving additive and invasive software at kids is the solution.
Not getting rid of a useful tool that kids should learn to properly utilize and one of the single largest tools of safety for kids.
She is right. I don't use a smartphone anymore. I now use a dumbphone. It helps me focus and reduce stress. Turns out you don't need the internet with you 24/7. If someone really needs me, he can call.
This isnt about protecting kids, its about age verifying and de-anonymising everyone. Australia has already gone down this road, dont fall for the trap.
When I called my federal representative about the laws and the miles wide holes in Australian privacy laws and more particularly who would be responsible for covering the costs associated with helping citizens recover in the cases of rampant identity theft these laws are going enable, I got assurances that the eSafety Commissioner would be able to hold large tech companies to account. I pointed out that if Meta was to suffer a breach that exposed the details of say a thousand Australians I could see them ponying up the fine, just cost of doing business, if the details of 2 million Australians got leaked then with potential fines stretching into the billions why would they even fight it, so much simpler to cut Australia off like a gangrenous limb. I was assured that the eSafety commissioner would be monitoring these large companies to ensure their data security was up to standard, I laughed. I was told that our parliament may be looking in to strengthening data protection laws and was promised an email with details about this (3 weeks ago with not even a message to say sorry for the delay). I was thoroughly disgusted, this I'll thought out plan to scrape as much data as Australians can be tricked into handing over is going to result in massive costs to the tax payer before too long. Discord has already leaked data related to age verification and Australia hasn't even got its law started yet.
I really think we need remove a lot of the protections from Politicians: "You want to spy on the Australian public at the behest of a shadowy cabal of Intelligence Community wonks? Ok we can do that, but you are personally liable for it when it goes wrong, you will be personally paying all the costs associated with the following scenarios we are categorically stating will occur if you proceed with this nonsense. If you do not have sufficient money to cover these costs all of your assets will be sold and you will become an indentured servant of the Australian public until your debt is cleared."
I got an interesting response when I told the guy at the MPs office that I would shutdown or abandon any app, website or service that demanded my ID. There is no service online which is worth providing a drivers license or sufficient photos to create a reasonable reproduction of my face.
I dont even think this is related to the intelligence community, who are happy to spy on anyone regardless of age, I think it's just a poorly thought out law.
They definitely need to own the responsibility though. When these ID databases leak, and they will, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people are going to be caught up in the mess, such as:
- Closeted LGBTQ individuals, who may get outed.
- Domestic violence victims trying to escape.
Doxing/Outing these people will result in significant harm, upto and including death. These inevitable deaths with be on the politicians hands.
And the worst part? It won't stop kids getting online or bullying each other.
Personally, I may just intentionally leak my drivers licence online, and get it reissued or something. Give plausible deniability to anything that happens associated with the ID. Not sure exactly what the ramifications are for doing that though.
I think pretty solidly this is being driven by business and intelligence communities, our police and spy agencies have been trying to get around encryption and online anonymity for years. They desperately want to be able to tie every bit of data that moves around the internet to an individual without getting the courts involved, and bear in mind since Australia is a Five Eyes nation not all of that pressure is onshore. It is getting the limpest push back from these big tech companies though because how much more valuable is your advertising profile if they can associate it with tour government ID, or birth certificate, or confirmed validated biometric data.
I know of a Telco that had to pay to move a family to a different state after they provided their address to a man who posed a credible risk to their lives. They had to buy this family a new house, pay movers, and buy then a new car. The telco preempted the court on this so it wouldn't become a national story in the media and they could minimise the eventual fine they faced.
That one incident 2 decades ago cost more than half a million dollars to fix, uprooted a family and caused unknown amounts of trauma. Do we seriously think Twitter will take a similar incident as seriously? Google? Facebook? But I guarantee they will slurp up every bit of data they can.
You could just not have Internet access on your phone... A smart phone is more then just the internet. It's a camera, a Gameboy, an mp3 player, and other useful tools.
Feels like giving up all the usefulness just because it has internet access might be the best example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You mean they can leave a voicemail stating their business, right? I'm too anxious to answer random phone calls.