Re: Banning Social Media For Under-16s

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote

Scott Dorsey wrote

Which is why online controls won't work, becausethey won't have  support  of many parents...

It is a given, is it not, that those below a certain age are not of
sufficient maturity to make certain decisions for themselves.

That's not true of social media and certainly isnt true of all those under  16

That’s why  our species has the concept of “parents” and “parenting” at  all.

They are still parents when the kids are 40

Only  nowadays, society has become so complex that the parents of a child
cannot, on their own, supply sufficient guidance and care to ensure the
child grows up the right way.

That's bullshit

That’s why we have schools and
schoolteachers, for one thing.

That's bullshit too. We have schools because most parents
don't have the time or skills to teach most of what schools
teach and we certainly don't expect teachers to bring up kids.

As the saying goes, “it takes a village to raise a child”.

That's always been mindless bullshit and clearly
isnt true of the kids in our big rural propertys.

And as  Marshall  McLuhan pointed out, that“village” is nowadays well  and truly global.

More mindless bullshit.

When I was 16 I snuck into movie theatres to watch x-rated movies, which
is probably more harmful than watching them on one's phone and certainly
requires far more effort.

And therefore you did it less. That’s the difference.

There is no evidence that any ban on the use of social
media would actually see most kids except to those of the
most stupid lawbiding parents would actually use it less.

The only solution is to actually educate kids about sex ...

Some right-wingers have religious objections to that though, don’t they?

Who cares about fools like that