alt Hacker NewsA ban is a good idea, but not by eroding the privacy of every adult, for all of the reasons stated elsewhere.
I think most people agree that social media is toxic, not just for children, but adults too.
What I don't understand is why parents don't take responsibility for reducing the contact with such harmful products.
Even growing up in the 70's, most children didn't smoke or drink alcohol, not because they didn't have access to it, but because of the wrath of their parents.
Replies
I think when something is an issue for 90% plus of children (which I think this is probably is in some form), then it's not something we can blame entirely on parenting.
I seem to have struck lucky with a child who didn't want a mobile phone, but he was one of only two or three children a year of 200 at school that didn't have one. I can see that it's hard to deny your child something that every other child has and phones are useful when your child starts becoming more independent. I certainly wouldn't do a long journey without my phone myself. We obviously managed without phones as children, but if your child is going to school on public transport, I totally understand wanting them to have a phone in case of problems.
The apps and websites often have good (or relatively harmless!) parts to them e.g YouTube has tons of brilliant educational videos. There is no easy way as a parent to give them access to the good parts without access to the more harmful parts. You don't want to be a total killjoy and never let them play a computer game (plus playing games with them is fun!). Schools require internet usage for homework. You end up in lots of awkward grey areas. Is watching a video about building logic gates in Minecraft ok? If so, then what about Minecraft videos generally? You can't pre-vet everything they want to watch and then supervise them closely to make sure they don't stray from that.
It feels different from smoking/alcohol because there are so many grey areas and there isn't quite as clear evidence as to what exactly is harmful. Ideally you try and prevent your children smoking and drinking alcohol with education and setting a good example rather your wrath. That's trickier with social media.
I think the current proposals are non-ideal but a bit of a desperation measure because nobody has come up with anything better.
> What I don't understand is why parents don't take responsibility for reducing the contact with such harmful products.
It's critical mass. I didn't want my 13-year-old daughter on social media, because even 7 years ago we knew the harms. We were firm, and we kept her off it. The problem was that we were attempting to help her with her mental health, but when you're literally the only kid who didn't read the group chat from your friend group the night before, that does remarkable damage to your mental health. It cuts off an enormous part of their social life.
If the majority of kids weren't using it then it'd be easy, but because it's their primary form of communication, it's incredibly difficult.
> Even growing up in the 70's, most children didn't smoke or drink alcohol
The smoking rates and underage alcohol consumption went down since 1970ties. And afaik, most people start drinking alcohol as teenagers or sooner. What is stopping them is access or lack of it, not fear of parents.
> most children didn't smoke or drink alcohol, not because they didn't have access to it, but because of the wrath of their parents.
I think you have answered your own question. The children who need this ban most are the children of parents who don't pay attention/care what their children are doing. So the state has to do it for them.