[altacc]

The problem with "let the parents decide" is that so many parents take the option of least resistance and currently that's a terrible option. From what I see of my childrens' peers, it's not parents are deciding to let their children run wild on social media, it's that they don't even think about it, they just hand over a phone or tablet, often with their own login, and don't think much about it.

One way of solving this is if the default was everything locked down, then effort needed to give the children anything, forcing parents to consider each permission.

However I also see that parents are addicted to their devices and social media, so don't see the problem.

[ls612]

I’m still not convinced what is fundamentally different today about social media compared to violent video games which were the supposed evil my parents obsessed about when I was a kid. This is just the “sex drugs and rock & roll” for the 21st century’s control freaks.

[zugi]

And before sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll it was that sinful Lindy Hop those kids were doing.

[sylens]

You can’t tell the difference between a finite experience like Goldeneye or Doom and an endlessly scrolling, network connected app like TikTok, optimized to feed you what it thinks will keep you scrolling?

[linguae]

I lean libertarian and I resent the nanny state, but I’m sympathetic to the idea of restricting social media access to children for two reasons:

1. Even in the 1990s, there were problems with child predators using chat rooms and Web forums to talk to minors for inappropriate, illegal purposes.

2. Social media “algorithms” (recommender systems) that are designed around increasing user engagement are a big problem.

I’m very cautious about poorly written legislation with too-broad definitions of social media that restrict useful forms of Internet access for children. However, I believe that algorithmic social media is harmful, especially to minors, and I am sympathetic to restrictions for minors provided that the laws are well-written.

[michaelmrose]

I don't think rock and roll taught fundamentally bad values nor did playing mario or doom.

Social media is by contrast fairly designed to spread 17 different kinds of poisonous stupidity. So you liked $conspiracy_theory... how about 10 more 3 of which suggest genocide!

[PlatoIsADisease]

While I am quite laissez-faire and not sure how much I care about this particular issue, I have seen this mentality on teaching. "Its the parents fault the kids can't read in college."

No... They spent 13 years in government school, that is not the parents fault if they can't read. If we assume its the parents job to educate their kids, there will be some 1-5% of kids that fall through the cracks, damning millions of kids to failure.

For policy that we care about, it is not good enough to have parents decide.

[bigbadfeline]

> No... They spent 13 years in government school

If that school doesn't take into account parents' preferences it would be a farm, not a school.

> If we assume its the parents job to educate their kids

We should assume it's the school's job to educate kids approximately in alignment with the wishes of their parents.

> For policy that we care about, it is not good enough to have parents decide.

"Good enough" for whom? Who is supposed to decide to the exclusion of parents? How such a decision is going to be made? Who is going to be responsible for the inevitable failures which are now called "successes"?

> "Its the parents fault the kids can't read in college."

If you understand what I'm trying to say here, you'll know that parents will always get the blame, no other party is willing to accept even the slightest hint of responsibility.