[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?

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'd encourage you to read some of the stuff that people were saying back then. Some choice quotes from a Senate hearing (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg78656/pdf/CH...):

> Kids as young as 3 years old can use mounted guns to shoot people to pieces and watch blood splatter on the screen. Kids get points for killing people. Parents eat pizza while their kids blow somebody up. I have friends who play them. Their eyes look crazy when they play them, and they get excited when the blood splatters and parts of bodies fly.

> The project is going to continue for a long time, because it is really hard to convince some people about the dangers. Some will not even listen. Some parents do not think it is harmful for a child to make blood splatter and body parts explode. I do not understand why they think it is okay to do this killing.

> Mortal Kombat series, Mortal Kombat Ultimate—This has joysticks. You use your fists and legs and feet. Bodies explode blood when you hit them. Mortal Kombat Ultimate says on the screen—‘‘There is no Knowledge that is not Power.’’ Does that mean that if you know how to kill someone, then you will have power?

It's very hard for me to read commentary on social media and not be reminded of this kind of rhetoric. All of the individual facts are true, it's hard to explain exactly what's wrong, and it's clear that everyone in this hearing passionately believed that disaster was incoming if we didn't take action. Yet I'm very confident that video games do not have the negative effects they thought were obvious.

[zugi]

And a few hundred years before that, parents complained their kids were off practicing witchcraft, instead of studying the Bible or working in the fields as they should be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against...

[ls612]

Obviously the particulars of each generation’s moral panic are different, but the fundamental nature of moral panics remain the same.

[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.

[zugi]

> I lean libertarian and I resent the nanny state, but ... I am sympathetic to restrictions for minors provided that the laws are well-written.

Then you know that "but think of the children" is the most common fear-mongering approach to justify increased authoritarianism. I've seen no way to craft legislation on this issue that uses government force to achieve your desired outcome, that don't also create massive undesired effects like invasion of privacy or outlawing anonimity. Can you point to some model laws on this that you like?

There are plenty of apps that parents who care can install on their kids' devices or ISP and carrier services to limit kids' social media access.

[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!

[verdverm]

Disney is worse in ways, subtle sexual imagery in their cartoons and interpersonal drama in their teen shows. Kids are learning these patterns before they even get to social media

[michaelmrose]

Social media helps spread poisonous stupidity that promotes genocide and Disney is "worse in ways" because teen characters all aren't Dora the explorer and kiss boys and have drama? Is that actually what you meant to say?

[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.

[PlatoIsADisease]

I don't think I could disagree more. Government education should be preparing people to create GDP and pro-social behavior.