The Australian government has announced what it describes as world-leading legislation that would set 16 years as the minimum age for children to use social media and hold platforms responsible for ensuring compliance.
Difficult debate. Not sure the traditional media are so much better. I personally think that educating teens to handle whatever medias would be preferable to a blanked ban. It’s going to be interesting to see how it will evolve.
Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.
Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.
Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe.
And life, in general, is filled with bullies.
No, bullying isn’t the only danger. Addiction is another and that’s just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.
Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids?
I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.
Good default, I’m of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn’t enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.
Sugar isn’t restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there’s a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.
The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…
I don’t know about addictiveness but sugar isn’t as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don’t get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren’t taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.
Difficult debate. Not sure the traditional media are so much better. I personally think that educating teens to handle whatever medias would be preferable to a blanked ban. It’s going to be interesting to see how it will evolve.
Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.
Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.
Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe. And life, in general, is filled with bullies.
No, bullying isn’t the only danger. Addiction is another and that’s just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.
Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids? I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.
Good default, I’m of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn’t enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.
Sugar isn’t restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there’s a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.
The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…
I don’t know about addictiveness but sugar isn’t as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don’t get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren’t taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.