• VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        This doesn’t make sense. Forbidding social media is as stupid as forbidding video games, it’s old people not trying to find the real cause and instead passing measures which will be completely useless. Social media doesn’t necessarily mean Meta

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          You’re saying that social media is not the real cause of the youth mental health crisis? Do you propose a different cause? Because I know of a good few, very well-qualified people (of varying ages) that might explicitly disagree with you…

          • 257m@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            As a 17 year old who only really uses Lemmy, Youtube and IRC I think social media is the least of my problems. I wouldn’t spend so much time online if there was anything else to do. The outside is a suburban wasteland that offers nothing. The most I can do is walk to the library an hour away and read a book there.

              • 257m@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                Yeah I guess. North American suburbs are not built for youth. It sucks here. I wish I was born in the Netherlands or something but where I live I have no way to actually safely leave my subdivision since its divided from the nearest city by the Highway 401.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        Whether that’s true is irrelevant. This isn’t something the government should be getting involved in, outside of prosecuting parents for neglecting their kids.

        I don’t let my kids use social media because they aren’t ready for it. If they are ready for it, but my government says they can’t, I’m going to use technical means (i.e. VPN, having them use my account, etc) to subvert the law. It should be my choice if my kids can access something, not the government’s.

        If the government wants to tackle this, they should be working with parents on the issue. Maybe sponsor a FOSS content blocker or work with social media orgs to create a concept of custodial accounts, and have some way for that to work w/ the FOSS content blocker. But don’t unilaterally ban something because you think it’s harmful.

        If I want to smoke, that should 100% be my right, provided I’m not bothering other people. If my kids smoke, that should be 100% on me for being a negligent parent and allowing them to do something harmful (assuming I should know about it). The government shouldn’t be making parenting decisions for me, that’s my responsibility.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          I can get behind that, but that’s not typically the way it works currently. Typically laws restrict children from the use or purchase of certain harmful substances. Same thing with access to pornography. With the data on what SM does to mental health in children it makes no sense restrict those other things but not this.