[morbia]

Gay guy here.

I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves.

Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, based off a scale of a child's age and maturity, children are entitled to some privacy. Clearly a 4 year old shouldn't be left alone with unfettered access to the Internet, but equally a 16 year old shouldn't have to feel like their parents are watching everything they do or say. Both can cause long term psychological harm to a child.

[stuckinhell]

Social media is not the same as it was 10 years ago.

The level of which kids compare themselves to other kids took an exponential leap to a near hive mind level. Constantly comparing themselves to the instagram people with fake lives, rich kids, or extremely beautiful people is mentally damaging them.

My daughter asked me for plastic surgery, and I was dumbfounded. So I went check her internet logs, and she's been watching rich kids of instagram/tiktok/etc. So now I'm trying to figure out how to talk with her about this.

There is balance, but as her mother I don't think I'll be letting her have internet privacy until she's grown up and moved out.

[whats_a_quasar]

The mental health of teens and pre-teens has gotten really bad. This isn't just another "think of the children scare." Since the early 2010s the rate of self harm among girls 10-14 has ~tripled, and the rate of suicide among 10-14 year olds has doubled [1].

And there is now lots of evidence that this is because of social media and smartphones. The social lives of kids have changed drastically, in a way that does not meet their basic psychological needs [2].

I think that people's perceptions of social media are lagging behind the reality on the ground. There have always been moral panics and silly scares about whether the kids are alright, most of which were unfounded. So I think we are now reacting too slowly to the genuine health crisis caused by technology.

[1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness...

[2] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...

[heavyset_go]

> https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness...

I don't necessarily buy the premise that the economy isn't having poor effects on teenagers' mental health just because the GFC is "over". Maybe to financial markets it is, but for people who need to work for a living, things changed since 2008 for the worse.

Teens are more likely to see their parents struggle to pay bills despite working full-time and with two incomes, they're more likely to see their parents face real threats like being unable to afford housing and the consequences that brings, they're going to see how the march of increasing costs of living affects their family in the face of stagnant wages. They also see countless examples of older people who do "everything right", yet are still laid off and can't re-enter the workforce in the same capacity as they had in the past, and are pushed out of their careers entirely.

On top of that, they're being told that they'll be relegated to a life of even worse poverty if they don't get into a good college, but even then, they aren't guaranteed a sustainable job and will have to take out a mortgage-sized loan just to attend. That loan will hang around their necks until they die even if they're only able to find a job that pays $30k a year. And if they want a job that even pays that much, they'll need a degree anyway, because those jobs have degree requirements, too.

I can understand why that would be overwhelming and depressing to teenagers.

[rayiner]

Is that the economy, or is it the way people are socialized to think about the economy, and life in general? The suicide rate in America is four times higher than in the poor developing country I’m from.

[mrguyorama]

In what way is "Mom and dad can't afford rent" Not actually the economy? What is this absurd statement you are making?

[acuozzo]

The poor in your country know how to be poor.

After decades of prosperity, the USA has lost the majority of the generational knowledge and skills that poor people pass on to their children. I've spoken with people who spend almost an entire day's wage on a visit to the local laundromat.

Moreover, the poor here have very little access to mutual aid networks due to the loss of "third places" like churches. It's not uncommon to hear of poor people here having their children taken away by the state because they were just making ends meet and can't afford to pay for child care and have nobody to rely on to watch their kids after school; not even a neighbor.

[autoexec]

Being poor is depressing, but I suspect watching your standard of living decline, your hopes and dreams destroyed, and your children forced to struggle in ways you or your parents never had to before hits harder.

[antifa]

All while being looked down on by your politicians who also shout at you about how it's the greatest thing ever and you should be thankful for it.

[rayiner]

If you have socialized people into a culture where higher housing and educational costs more than offsetting the fact you make more money than your parents did at the same age causes four times as many people to kill the selves than folks in a Bangladeshi village, then I’m sorry the problem is your culture. You have created a culture where people have no resilience to a bump in the road.

[bioemerl]

And the economy isn't even that bad in general. I don't understand this tendency on the internet just so overly exaggerate how bad the economy is. Unemployment is near record lows right now. We have a bit of wage growth lag in the last few years thanks to everything going on, but up until then we had pretty strong wage growth.

I don't know if I'm just in a bubble because I don't live in one of the big cities with crazy housing prices? Right now it seems to be better time to be out and getting a job than any.

.... Unless you're a programmer.

[autoexec]

> And the economy isn't even that bad in general. I don't understand this tendency on the internet just so overly exaggerate how bad the economy is. Unemployment is near record lows right now.

Unemployment doesn't tell us a whole lot. There's more people out of work today than before. Unemployment numbers don't tell you about the people whose only employment is part time or pays a fraction of what it used to pay either.

In the US evictions are on the rise, homelessness is on the rise, child poverty is on the rise, household debt is on the rise, utility service disconnections are rising, 80% of people in the US think their children will grow to be worse off than they are. None of this signals a healthy economy. The economy is making many already rich people even more money than ever before while the middle class increasingly struggles and the poor face ever rising expenses.

Outside of the tech world, this is a great time to find a job, but that doesn't mean you'll make enough money to support yourself. Programmers have it a bit rough right now, and it always hurts like hell to see your standard of living decline, but it's not that bad really. For so much of the country their standard of living starts a lot lower and it's still getting worse.

[api]

I really think it’s important to stress that it’s not all technology generally. It’s a specific thing: addictive content on mobile phones, especially when it also delivers toxic messaging (whether intentionally or not).

The really toxic thing here is the portable omnipresent virtual Skinner box.

Highlighting that specific thing will help make sure any regulation we do enact will be properly targeted. Kids learning to code or doing homework on a computer or even playing a few games is not the problem. “Social” media and hyper-addictive content is the problem. Tech that is designed to be addictive is the problem.

Addictive trash on PCs can be harmful too, but the form factor limits just how extreme and pervasive it can be.

I also think the mobile ecosystem is just culturally more oriented toward making things addictive. Mobile games, media, everything on the platform seems designed to suck people in and keep them staring. The PC ecosystem still seems to have some sense that computers should exist to help people or make them smarter, not addict them. It’s like mobile is run by the people who design slot machines.

[mordae]

I don't think this is about smartphones. This is about the online systems they interact with. We really should ban systematic user manipulation, advertising as a business and all unmoderated online spaces.

Most on-topic and/or small communities are fine. It's OK to create forum, but you need someone to step up and step in when necessary. Unmoderated FB-style exchanges and viral content with attached comment section need to go.

Well, that won't happen. Capitalists wouldn't allow it and regular people have this toxic environment internalized and normalized.

So I guess people will kill themselves. And a lot more will be permanently damaged.

It doesn't matter anyway. Soon there won't be any meaningful employment for kinds of people who fall prey to this due to ML replacing them, so this is just a drop in the ocean.

Root cause is the profit motive. Get rid of that and we can start having real discussions about what do we want.

[dTal]

>ban systematic user manipulation, advertising as a business and all unmoderated online spaces

One of these is not like the others.

Ban private communication because think of the children? Heard that one before. And "moderation" is "systematic user manipulation", so I guess just ban everything? "Moderation" is not some panacea, it just means some unspecified third party interfering. Moderated by whom, and by what critera? And those "FB-style exchanges" you hate are "moderated" by the FB algorithm.

[altair222]

This has to be one of the most boomer, gaslighting take i've ever seen. Yes, not the constant attack on LGBTQ rights, not the domestic abuses, not the shit education and academic culture, not blatant racism and neo-nazism but smartphones are what caused the mental health issues.

[Version467]

May I ask how old your daughter is? It's concerning regardless of age, but if she's ~17 than I can see how this came to be, vs. if she's ~12 then I need to update my mental model of the world.

Also, did she ask about plastic surgery, or did she express interest in getting plastic surgery?

I don't mean to pry, I'm just more surprised than I (apparently) should be and would like to fix my gap in understanding.

[bcrosby95]

I'm not sure why it would be too surprising.

The problem with the internet is simple: it's easy to be constantly exposed to the top 0.001% of any aspect of life.

Consider this website. How many people feel diminished in the face of the achievements of others? How many seek out their advice on how to up their game? If you could get surgery to make you better at software development, how many would do so? If grown-ass adults are subject to this sort of stuff, how do we expect children to be able to cope?

[morbia]

Just to be clear, I am not a parent and I would not be so presumptuous to criticise someone's parenting skills when I have not gone through it. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the internet of 2023 is nothing like 2013 (or 2003 when I was growing up), and I don't think your reaction to the situation you described is wrong. Needless to say, parenting in this era is really, really hard and I don't envy you.

However, I want to exercise a hypothetical with you: what if you had discovered through access to her internet logs that she was a lesbian, or a trans man? How would you deal with that situation? Would you confront them, or would you pretend you didn't see it? Even if you have liberal views and are supportive*, that is a very deep and intimate piece of knowledge on your child that you hold now. Instead of them dictating the terms of their coming out, you effectively control that. That is quite a violation of trust.

Presumably your daughter knows you can see their internet logs, what if she does not feel like she isn't being her authentic self online because she knows you will find out? Even if you are supportive, discovering your sexual and/or gender identity takes time and takes having a safe space to feel comfortable to confide in someone.

This is all working under the assumption that you are comfortable with this, what about the many parents out there who are not? This becomes a weapon they can use to inflict psychological trauma on their child. Growing up as a LGBT kids is really hard for many of us, even today. Giving any more control or power to conservative parents is extremely dangerous.

You might think I'm exaggerating, or perhaps this is a niche point (it is far more likely your daughter is straight and cis-gendered) but the stakes are really high here. I came out to my parents when I was an adult, on my own terms when I moved out. I still got the 'it's just a phase' speech and all that sort of rubbish, but it was very clear to my parents that they had zero control over my life at that point. If they wanted to maintain a relationship with their son they had to change their viewpoints pretty quickly (and they did). Without hyperbole, if they had outed me when I was a child at best I would have been traumatised, at worst I would have killed myself.

I hope parents reading this really think about what I am saying here and take it seriously, because for some of you this will be something you'll have to deal with. How you do that will define everything about your relationship with your child.

* There is a whole separate discussion on what medical intervention for gender dysphoria is appropriate for children, but for the sake of this discussion I mean are you comfortable with the concept having a trans child more than specifics on medication.

[mixmastamyk]

You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.

That you can think up a problematic case doesn’t mean we throw out the concept for the other 90% of kids that benefit from involved parents. Some of the rest are suicide risks even when not being harassed. They’d benefit as well.

I personally grew up in a “lord of the flies” environment and wouldn’t recommend it. Would have been nice to have some guidance, even if not perfect.

[morbia]

> You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.

Of course, I'm not claiming otherwise. Hell, I'm not even saying that legally children should be entitled to privacy from their parents, clearly that isn't feasible or desireable in any way.

However, morally and ethically it is not black or white. It is not a case of "lord of the flies" or parental prison as a binary choice.

Honestly, I'm not even disagreeing with the original poster I replied to. I don't think they were wrong for snooping on their child's internet history. I just wanted to start an open discussion on a legitmate concern caused by snooping which many families go through. It is something that heterosexual parents often do not consider or appreciate because it was not part of their experiences when they grew up. To use your terms, they are "too deep in their community" to appreciate it.

[mixmastamyk]

Sure. The internet has become even more dangerous as time goes by however, so I don't feel like it should be the first or only solution to the real problem cases you mention.

[themitigating]

That's great, feel free to supervise your kids. You don't get to use the government to do it. Are you saying that the 1st amendment can have exceptions if a child's safety is at stake?

[mixmastamyk]

Oh but we do. Kids have been prohibited from entering bars and buying tobacco, by law for a long time. We generally think that's a good thing, and why it continues to be law.

[themitigating]

Ok that's fair. It turns out that guns are the leading cause of death for kids in the US. Can we make exceptions to the 2nd admendment?

[stuckinhell]

Instead of hypothetical, let me be very very clear. It's my child not yours, not the schools, not the governments.

It's my child, that I carried for 9 months. I'll do what I think is best. I don't care about your opinion here in the slightest because at the end of the day you have no connection to my family and aren't responsible for their well being.

[fknorangesite]

> you have no connection to my family and aren't responsible for their well being.

Sure, but you are, and morbia's comment here was a thoughtful call for introspection on your part when considering what that well being entails, exactly. It was not out of place.

[stuckinhell]

My point was that I am and he isn't. His comment was only thoughtful on his own terms.

His terms aren't universal or acceptable because it's my family not his. He's projecting his personal experience onto my kids, which I've clearly discussed prior is not the same generationally or ever personally.

I'm not alone in this. Parent's are tired of people who have no business in our families trying to push their own visions of family, culture, politics, etc.

That's why home schooling is on the rise in both liberal and conservative circles (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/as-u-s-schools-reopen...).

[themitigating]

What you think as "pushing" is simply making people aware of the existence of another culture, idea, or political view and that's why I don't agree with you. It's similar to how people misuse "indoctrination". This whole "I'm a parent" mantra to shut down opposing views is pathetic. Being a parent doesn't make you special, doesn't mean you get more power than others, and it certainly doesn't make you right.

I also consider people like to be a danger because you think your view is 100% correct, that exposure to different opinions is wrong, and finally is that you'll use the government to push YOUR agenda, and yes that is the correct usage this time. It's already happening in Florida.[1]

You don't like what it's in public schools feel free to home school your children. You don't like what it's in the library, don't go. Unless you lock your kids away they are going to see and hear about things you disagree with and maybe you pushing so hard is going to backfire.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Keep banning books, keep calling your enemies pedophiles, and keep pushing just because you've had local success when no one was watching (i.e. Mom's for Liberty). You'll turn the right of center and moderate voters towards the Democrats and, hopefully, just like Arizona, enough states will fall and this nonsense will stop.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989

[morbia]

> His terms aren't universal or acceptable because it's my family not his. He's projecting his personal experience onto my kids, which I've clearly discussed prior is not the same generationally or ever personally.

I am doing nothing of the sort. In fact, I haven't made any comment towards which I disagree with your actions with regards to your example. I haven't really formulated any opinions on this, and certainly not towards your family. I was wanting an open discourse using a hypothetical scenario and received a rather personal defensive retort in return.

All I believe is LGBT children have a right to be protected, sometimes that is from their own parents. Yes, that is formulated through the lens of my experiences in the same way yours are through being a mother of a child in 2023. I am not trying to push a vision of family, culture or politics, I'm trying to make parents think about this that is all. My hypothetical scenario is not so hypothetical for many families.

[themitigating]

What if you think is best harms the child? Obviously there's limits you can think it's best to lock your kid in a basement 24/7 right?

I'm not against parental rights but also hate absolute statements like your first sentence

[codeguro]

Parents, for their children’s best interests, have a prerogative to control what their children are exposed to. Social media is absolutely within that domain. I’m inclined to believe anyone who disagrees with that principle is a potential predator who seeks to undermine that authority. Sexual preferences are fundamentally sexual in nature, and parents absolutely have the prerogative to gatekeep the kinds of content their children are exposed to, especially sexual content. Children cannot (and should not be) expect(ed) to have any real form of privacy while under the care and supervision and oversight of their own parents. If parents see their children on internet chats they have a right to be involved and snoop on the logs and intervene to nip bad ideas in the bud. They have a prerogative in influencing the upbringing of their children in every aspect of their lives. Children simply cannot consent to life-changing decisions such as having sex, or sexual reassignment surgeries, or taking puberty-blocking hormones (aka sterilization drugs also given to convicted pedophiles). This includes intervening when strangers on the internet are grooming their sons / daughters to convince them they are gay or trans orcc by whatever.

[fknorangesite]

> strangers on the internet are grooming their sons / daughters to convince them they are gay or trans

This is just the latest bullshit moral panic du jour.

[buffington]

I'd rather not share specific details due to privacy concerns, but I've personally needed to rescue a loved one who was groomed by a stranger on the internet, convinced their loved ones were manipulating them and oppressing them, then kidnapped (across state lines), then encouraged to start hormone replacement therapy.

To be clear: I support trans kids and I find opportunities to support them however I can. The loved one in the case I describe is not trans. They were a minor at the time, and according to them, didn't really have a sense for how they might identify. A stranger took advantage of that, inflicted severe emotional trauma and irreversible changes, and, thankfully, will remain in prison for at least another 3 years (for this one case).

Whether it's "the latest bullshit moral panic du jour" I can't speak to. According to the FBI and state police involved in my particular experience, they've seen a sharp uptick in cases like the one my loved one experienced. I've seen my young teen age nieces nearly fall into similar traps. I only know about those close calls because my nieces have the experiences of their older family member to lean on, and know to share sketchy communications with their parents and me.

I suspect the "gay or trans" angle is indeed "bullshit moral panic" motivated by politics/fear more than anything, but the idea that young people are being manipulated and sucked into dark places is very much real.

[thomastjeffery]

What has changed is the level of engagement.

The only adequate solution is to respond in kind.

That can only be done from a place of empathy, which is particularly difficult to have if you are starting now.

I think the best approach is to be clear about your intentions and motivations, and make it explicit that you are not looking for opportunity to pass judgement. Be clear about what you want to change, and ask for input.

[pjc50]

Yes. This should be seen in the context of the huge set of anti-trans laws and the Florida book banning. There is going to be another attempt at making it illegal for kids to hear about non-straight people at all. And outing kids to their parents, even at risk of violence, is a part of that.

The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough.

Edit: see the absolutely huge number of people on HN downthread cheering this on because they hate Facebook. Strange world.

[rayiner]

> The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough

WASPs are the ones pushing pornographic books in schools. Florida is one of the most diverse states in the country.

[pjc50]

Neither of those things are true? The books being banned are not pornographic?

[rayiner]

“WASP” has the specific connotation of northeastern white people of longstanding American lineage. (The term typically excludes southern and Appalachian whites that technically also are Anglo Saxon and Protestant.) Those people are the vanguard of social liberalism today, in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.

In Florida, meanwhile, non-Hispanic whites are just 51% of the population (versus 65-70% in Massachusetts and Connecticut). And the white people who are there aren’t really “WASPs” in the typical sense of the word. DeSantis, of course, isn’t a WASP at all. He’s a Catholic. American social conservatism is primarily a coalition of southern whites, “ethnic whites” (German, Italian, and Irish), and Hispanics—none of whom were traditionally considered “WASPs.”

The books are absolutely pornographic: https://www.ibtimes.sg/texas-school-sparks-outrage-after-mom.... They contain graphic depictions of underage people engaged in sex acts.

[throwaway-blaze]

The graphic depiction of underage people engaged in sex acts is against federal law and most likely Texas law as well. It is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books.

I'm about as liberal as they come on social issues. But I don't think these books are appropriate in an elementary or middle school library.

[themitigating]

Probably no one thinks it shouldn't but you are manipulating the debate by finding an example like that and ignoring books that are banned for other reasons.

Here's a list from one county https://pen.org/banned-books-florida/

I'm going to do one because I'm pretty sure I don't need to check anymore to determine that you are cherry picking.

Love to Mama: A Tribute To Mothers, by Pat Mora, Paula S. Barragán M.

"Pat Mora edited and contributed to this beautiful and celebratory collection, in which thirteen poets write with joy, humor, and love about the powerful bond between mothers, grandmothers, and children. These poets represent a wide spectrum of Latino voices, from award-winning authors to a 15-year-old new talent. They write passionately about their Puerto Rican, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Mexican American backgrounds and the undeniable influence of their mothers and grandmothers. Illustrated with exuberance by Ecuadorian artist Paula S. Barragán M.,"

They banned a valid book so you can hold it up and say what you said. In fact without these new laws I'm sure the book in question (which you didn't mention) probably wouldn't be in libraries

[rayiner]

> It is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books.

It’s because a lot of people are using a small number of sexual minorities as a pretext for encouraging everyone’s kids to explore their sexuality.

[random314]

It's cool as long as they also ban the Bible - incest, rape and what not.

[themitigating]

Are all the books being banned pornographic? Is this a way for people to get some books that maybe should be banned but then go after books where gays and trans people are shown in a positive light?

[insane_dreamer]

In theory I agree with you and the other posters on this. But as someone with preteen kids there’s the other side of me that wants to a) protect them from all the actual shit out there, and b) perhaps more importantly encourage them to do something more constructive than mindlessly scrolling through TikTok clips that have no value whatsoever. In fact I’m far more worried about b) than a) because I know they can learn to discern a) but b) can become a true addiction. I want them to explore whatever their interests are - which may be very different than mine were at their age - what I don’t want is for them to become the equivalent of “zombie couch potatoes”. I’m also concerned about all the negative comparisons that come with “oh look how those peoples lives are so much better than mine” ; I suffered from that myself as an adult (even though I knew that what I saw on social media was not a true representation of peoples lives) and was happier after I deleted my FB account (not to mention wasting less time). Anyway I wonder how many people responding here have teenagers, because when you do, you think of this issue from a different perspective. (I’m not religious nor in Utah)

[insane_dreamer]

PS. Having said the above, I do not agree with a law parental consent being required until 18. I would want my kids to have acquired good habits and be able to make reasonable decisions in their own without our involvement by 14 or so.

[fatnoah]

As someone with a teen, it's tremendously difficult to navigate, and like all things related to child-rearing, it probably depends on the actual kids in question.

For our teen, the rule is that mom and dad have full access to all devices at any time. Technological limits and locks don't seem to be good options, since there are so many ways around them that I think they provide a false sense of security. Also, as teens, they're always around others that may not have locked-down access, so we simply operate under the assumption that they're seeing anything and everything. Instead, we apply some time-limiting to certain things, and make sure the phone is in it's charger in a public place at night, and generally try to make sure there are breaks from the media throughout the day.

Instead, we really try to engage with the content that they are interested in, and actually try to discuss it in a constructive manner, such as how most of what you see is stage-managed to present the best side of things, or to simply get eyeballs to build a brand and/or get advertising dollars. We never apply judgement or talk down to them in these conversations. With our child (and for many, I suspect) that's just a great way to get them to tune you out.

There's also an upside. We moved to a different town before middle school, and it was via social media that our child was able to stay in touch with old friends and to stay in touch with new friends during Covid. They're also inspired to do creative things that they've seen on TikTok. They has zero interest in cooking or baking but, for whatever reason, seeing people make stuff on TikTok sparked their interest in a way mom and dad never could.

This isn't to say that we're not worried, but at some point we have to do what we can to try to prepare them as much as possible. We were also worried the first time they walked to school alone, walked with a friend to the theater in the city for a 9:30pm movie showing, and will absolutely worry when they first get into a car at 16 and drive away. We also understand that social media is a totally different animal. It's full time, all the time, and designed to suck you in. Anything you post, even in private, will be public at some point. (This was one of our earliest topics of conversation! Unfortunately, there is a not of actual evidence to support this)

All that said, it really depends on the child, their own self-image, friends, environment, etc. If we took TikTok away, our child would be upset but would be over it quickly. Getting rid of Discord, however, would be devastating as that's how they chat with their friends. Parents should 100% be knowledgable and involved, but I think legal efforts like Utah's are doomed to fail because they'll only be successful at making adults feel like they're doing something, and there are too many ways around it. I also worry that parents will have a false confidence that restricting access will somehow solve the problem and reduce parent-child dialogue about these topics, or that kids will suffer for being digital have-nots.

[insane_dreamer]

Good point about separating use of social media to stay in touch with and have fun with friends vs doom scrolling

[camhart]

I disagree. I don't think full access to messages is always necessary, but it can be in some circumstances and it should be up to the parent to decide how responsible their child is online and grant privacy accordingly.

A 16 year old is still going through tons of life changing events. Everyone needs help charting a course through life, especially at that age. Who better than a loving parent to guide them?

Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing online. More and more of "life" is online. More and more harm is impacting kids online. A parent whos entirely unaware of what their child is doing online is simply failing to be a parent.

[PretzelPirate]

> Who better than a loving parent to guide them?

Many of us didn't have loving parents. We had parents who would weaponize any detail they learned about us in order to hurt us.

I used the internet to get away from my parents when I physically couldn't.

[mixmastamyk]

A constructive solution to that is to call CPS or even run away. Getting hooked on tiktok as you would a drug is not.

I don’t believe this bill blocks iMessage for example.

[themitigating]

So a child getting addicted to Tiktok is worse than them running away or calling CPS, which could lead to their removal?

[mixmastamyk]

Hard to judge "what is worse" without more information. What I do know is that tiktok is not a solution.

CPS gets a bad wrap, often justifiably. But some in-fact-horrible parents do deserve to have their kids taken away to safety.

[watwut]

They are not designed to protect kids. There is always campaign designed to elicit fear and contempt and then they take controlling laws.

Talking about it as if safety was a goal instead of control is just falling into their lie.

[xboxnolifes]

It's never about the kids protection/rights. Kids don't vote, parents do. Nearly every proposed law marketed as protecting kids is actually about increasing parent or state control over kids.

[nine_k]

It's always important to remember that the tools that enable freedom, like voting, can be used against freedom, if enough of the population does not value it.

[brvsft]

Think of the gay children.

[WeylandYutani]

It is well known that more teens commit suicide in insular religious communities.

It's not social media it is people driving other people to despair. Ofcourse you can't really fix that.

[throwaway-blaze]

Source? That isn't true.

[rayiner]

The science is that people’s brains aren’t fully developed until age 25. What they have access to before that time should be carefully curated by adults.

[random314]

But peoples brains also deteriorate with time.

I believe only men(women have a smaller brain size and never achieve maturity) between the ages 25 and 40 should pick books for everyone else.

[nonethewiser]

> An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves.

How?

[woodruffw]

Presumably the "giving parents full access to online accounts" part. It isn't difficult to imagine scenarios in which a minor is "outed" because a parent exercises their power under the law.

[GrabbinD33ze69]

How is it that difficult to imagine how someone could be outed as gay etc if another party has the right to read through all of their messages etc lol.

[Eumenes]

This has me scratching my head too

[datavirtue]

The goal was to make kids unwilling to use social media.