Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does that work concretely though in terms of blocking access?

Most parents are looking for an excuse. This gives it to them. Social media can be prevented at the device level. Once most kids aren’t on it anymore, it loses its appeal. Lots of kids only do it because most other kids do it.

I have older teens so not being defensive, but I really don't see what it is going to look like. If it can already be prevented at the device level, then why ban it country-wide? There is no need. And if it's bad parenting and can't be prevented by the government, it also seems like a useless ban.

But think of the children!

This is more of a move against US tech companies than a move to protect kids. The practical effect will be driving kids to platforms and accounts with less oversight from government and parents. But this is being driven by people who don't think parents should get to decide whether or not their kids can use social media.

The above clearly written by someone clueless as to the scientific data that Facebook and Instagram THEMSELVES gathered (and hid) about the actual real negative impacts on children and on adults as well. And there were a LOT of serious negative impacts. Whatever the impacts on other companies, when we find out some ingredient in food is poisonous, the fact that banning its use stops millions from getting sick or dying is far more important than the companies that go out of business because they make it. Social media companies are not more important than kids' health. Well, to you they are apparently, but not to sane rational people.

There's a certain irony to those defending the usefulness of this move on a social media site with no accounts.

Remember, nothing is so bad that it can't get worse. As bad as Facebook and Instagram can be, Dcum is worse.

Anonymous wrote:Easy to ban on national level. Not enough kids will work around it so it will be useless. They can still text.

Way too much info bombarding from social media - those kids will be better off. And if most kids aren’t on it, there will be no pressure to join. Good for them. Some countries actually care about their youth.

You greatly underestimate the ingenuity of kids when they're motivated. It might kill Instagram, but they'll find a different platform with easier workarounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does that work concretely though in terms of blocking access?

Most parents are looking for an excuse. This gives it to them. Social media can be prevented at the device level. Once most kids aren’t on it anymore, it loses its appeal. Lots of kids only do it because most other kids do it.

I have older teens so not being defensive, but I really don't see what it is going to look like. If it can already be prevented at the device level, then why ban it country-wide? There is no need. And if it's bad parenting and can't be prevented by the government, it also seems like a useless ban.

But think of the children!

This is more of a move against US tech companies than a move to protect kids. The practical effect will be driving kids to platforms and accounts with less oversight from government and parents. But this is being driven by people who don't think parents should get to decide whether or not their kids can use social media.

I think they’re going to use some facial recognition AI technology to help figure out children’s general ages- obviously that has its flaws and limits, but it could be better than children just entering in birthdates which they can lie about.

Follow Jonathan Haidt and scrolling2death on social media- this issue is being discussed.

Easy to ban on national level. Not enough kids will work around it so it will be useless. They can still text.

Way too much info bombarding from social media - those kids will be better off. And if most kids aren’t on it, there will be no pressure to join. Good for them. Some countries actually care about their youth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does that work concretely though in terms of blocking access?

Most parents are looking for an excuse. This gives it to them. Social media can be prevented at the device level. Once most kids aren’t on it anymore, it loses its appeal. Lots of kids only do it because most other kids do it.

I have older teens so not being defensive, but I really don't see what it is going to look like. If it can already be prevented at the device level, then why ban it country-wide? There is no need. And if it's bad parenting and can't be prevented by the government, it also seems like a useless ban.

Anonymous wrote:How do they do this? Just curious because it seems impossible to do.

It probably won't work. But, when new users sign up from Australia, they'll probably have to provide an ID or bank account that can be verified.

Kids will bypass it by finding VPNs that send their traffic through a country without such restrictions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they do this? Just curious because it seems impossible to do.

They could ban at the device level from the phone company unless you send in ID. Like what they do with porn sites in some states now.

And widely bypassed.

And no, it isn't blocked at the "device-level" through the phone company.

Anonymous wrote:How do they do this? Just curious because it seems impossible to do.

They could ban at the device level from the phone company unless you send in ID. Like what they do with porn sites in some states now.

Anonymous wrote:How does that work concretely though in terms of blocking access?

Most parents are looking for an excuse. This gives it to them. Social media can be prevented at the device level. Once most kids aren’t on it anymore, it loses its appeal. Lots of kids only do it because most other kids do it.

I’m jealous. Their kids are going to be much healthier mentally from this. We need it here too. Actually it should be 18 - completely banned in all schools forever. Absolutely nothing good comes from it.

How do they do this? Just curious because it seems impossible to do.

How does that work concretely though in terms of blocking access?

And 10 other countries are looking to follow. Of course the US isn’t one of them. But a step in the right direction