this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
765 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59708 readers
1807 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I work tech in schools (in Australia) there are definitely tech savvy enough kids that will probably spool up their own fediverse instances

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I know right. I used to be a kid who bypassed school firewalls and restrictions all the time. This is going to make no difference.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (8 children)

It will likely make a big difference. Freedoms being taken away day by day and we shrug it off.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

Papers, please!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] baggachipz 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

People should be allowed to do as they please. I think, however, people should be presented with all the potential risks in very clear language if they're going to, in the same way a pack of cigarettes has a warning, access to social media should present similar disclaimers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Only for 16 seconds? Why?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

On the upside, people who sometimes wonder if the person arguing with them is a high school sophomore won't have to wonder anymore.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN's and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN's less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN's. It sounds like a great idea but I don't know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Most kids are not going to pay a subscription for a VPN, I don't think that would be as big of an issue as you think.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Well unless they go for free vpns and get data mined to the moon and back... Which is a far worse outcome imo.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Not a bad choice.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

So what? There will be a "Yes I'm over 16" check box which will be as meaningful as the "Yes I'm over 18" one on porn sites?

Any hope of governments or social media sites enforcing this will come with big ethical and technical compromises and I dont think anyone is actually going to really bother.

We already have limits on what children do with other potentially harmful things like fire, sharp objects, heights and roads and they all come from parents. If this law has any real and positive impact it will be the message that it sends to parents.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Eh, I don't think this is the best solution.

The assumption is as soon as you turn 17 you're smart enough and have the critical thinking skills to navigate social media without it negatively affecting you? Kinda dumb.

There could be an argument that at least try to block it while young peoples brains are still developing, maybe there's benefit in that.

Older people than 16 are still duped by propaganda, and become addicted to social media, and all the negative consequences.

What we need is regulation imo. Good, smart, progressive, altruistic regulation that is for the benefit of all. Ain't gonna happen though, because sOcIaLiSm and "mUh FrEeDoMs".

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›