[xipix]

We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law. It's how we stand together as a society, otherwise one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.

[wavemode]

> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

Yeah but, there's no precedent for regulating something that parents are opting into (by buying their kids devices and then turning them loose with no oversight).

We should be punishing liquor stores when a parent willingly buys their child alcohol, then?

[sajithdilshan]

I disagree

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents.

So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized?

> The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.

This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.

[xipix]

"Can I learn to drive?" "No, you're not old enough" "But my friend is already driving and he's 12" "OK, when you turn 12 you can too."

[sajithdilshan]

The parent in your conversation is just stupid and no matter how many laws we pass we cannot fix stupidity.

In that case only thing I can suggest is to pass a law to assess the eligibility and maturity of people if they want to have children and issue a permit if they are suitable to have and raise children and otherwise they cannot have children.

[wavemode]

I'm sorry but the parent in this conversation is just stupid.

As they say, you can't fix stupid.

[docdeek]

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents

That’s how it has been for most everything. Someone else’s parents let their kids watch TV on a school night, or stay up past 10pm, or has a curfew of 1am instead of midnight, or lets them drink soda at the dinner table. The response from my parents to me, and from me to my kids, has always been to point out that families are different, they have different rules, and that in this house we do X.

[squigz]

> We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law

> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.

In those other vices, we have various other regulations in order to reduce their harm as much as possible. Yet, there has been no similar push for the purported harm done by social media - or, apparently, the Internet in general. It's like we've tried nothing and are surprised it's still an issue.

[pfortuny]

> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parent.

And that would be a great oportunity to teach that child that those measures exist for a reason.

The government is and must always be a subsidiary actor.

Not every risk must be addressed, otherwise zebra crossings would not exist, or driving would be prohibited.

[xipix]

Driving is prohibited until a certain age. Parents don't get to discuss this with their child and decide when they're old enough.

[alexfoo]

Complete digression I know...

Driving on public roads is prohibited until a certain age.

That age is 17 here in the UK but me and many of my friends growing up in a rural area learned to drive from the age of 14 or 15 on private land. Our parents would take us there/back, provide the car and be our "instructor". Some friends who lived on farms had cars/trucks/etc of their own that they could use to drive around and their parents were fine to let us try too. But we knew that we were never allowed on public roads.

By the time we all got to 17 we applied for our tests and had a few lessons with an real instructor on real public roads. We still had to learn all of the rules/etiquette/etc but most of us where completely happy with the physical aspects of controlling the vehicle, that saved us a huge amount of time.

My kid is 15 and if a suitable opportunity arises I'll let them have a go behind the wheel (not illegally obviously). Unfortunately I live in a city not a rural area, and don't own a car, so there hasn't been the chance yet.

(In the UK land like a supermarket car park is still considered as public roads despite being privately owned. Generally anywhere where the public can access it easily is not considered "private" in terms of the Road Traffic Act.)

[danaris]

If we need regulation of "this harm", then what we need to be regulating is the social media networks, not the children (and adults!) that use them.

We need to be banning algorithmic feeds. We need to be banning promotion of hateful content. We need to be banning moderation that is biased against marginalized groups, or against criticism of the platform.

If they weren't being subjected to feeds specifically designed to create maximum "engagement" with fear, hate, and self-doubt, most young people using social media would be interacting in similar ways to how they interact offline. Perhaps there would be a little less inhibition due to the feeling of anonymity, but overall, anything harmful they might be doing or saying to each other on there is very similar to what they would be doing or saying to each other in person, regardless of what social media you let them access.