[azemetre]

Not really. It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media.

Anything that moves the needle toward dismantling the advertising and marketing industries will always be a worthwhile endeavor.

[Gud]

Why would it no longer be profitable to advertise to teens on YouTube just because they can’t have accounts?

[mathiaspoint]

Right they'll still have a persistent session that accumulates data for them. Just without the ability to persistent settings, subscriptions etc.

[azemetre]

Putting YouTube in the social media ban also removes personalized ads for teenagers. Personalized ad buys are very profitable for companies like Google and Meta. Hurting their ability to make money would only be a net positive for humanity.

[Aurornis]

> It means it's no longer profitable to advertise to teens on most corporate social media.

Advertisements are targeted on a number of factors. It’s not a simple checkbox that says “market this to teens”

[azemetre]

It is when they're personalized ads, which is what gets banned under Australia's social media ban for teens.

[soulofmischief]

Anything? Including preventing teens from having an online life?

[azemetre]

I had no issue with using the noncorpotized social media as a teen (livejournal, myspace before the buyout, forums, etc). Anything that ruins the might of Meta, Google would be a net positive for society.

Let's not act like the only way to communicate with each other or use the internet is through corporate controlled software.

It would do teenagers good to be forced to use other forms of social media that aren't controlled by companies that don't care about their mental health.

[soulofmischief]

You put these laws in place, and they will be used indiscriminately as needed. Anything can become "social media", and if not, it's easy to add a new category to the list since the Overton window has already been allowed to shift.

We the people are vanguards of our own freedom. Always assume a government organization is lying to you about their intentions. We're taught about slippery slopes in civics and history class for a reason.

The true intent here is to control the ability for teens to freely congregate online and contribute to discussion around unsanctioned topics. To prevent teenagers from being exposed to or distributing material that challenges the incumbent authorities.

[azemetre]

No, the true intent is to curtail big tech. Let's not get lost in the weeds, the law specifically targets certain companies that have proven to be harmful toward society. Social media that is not harmful is still perfectly legal and allowed.

No one has twisted Mark Zuckerberg to make something that profits off of misery, he's more than capable in making something less harmful and not getting banned. If you don't like Zuckerberg replace him with who you do like, it's the same story.

I also trust democracy and democratic institutions. The ability to destroy something is completely democratic and should happen by the people with things prove harmful.

What I don't trust are actors who engage in advocacy that is always anti-democratic in nature.