Share.

    13 Kommentare

    1. Yup instead of learning to evolve and integrate new technology we should just shut it down because “things were better when we were growing up”

      This is not progress.

    2. AFrozenCanadian on

      Little by little, they continue to take more and more freedoms… And when this doesn’t work, they’ll have an excuse to start restricting content that only they deem worthy of restriction while also pushing more and more forced digital identification.

      Elbows up.

    3. Immediate_Buffalo14 on

      I don’t object on principle, but such a measure shouldn’t be included because there are a million different ways to get around this.

    4. I would prefer parents do the banning , but yeah, social media is horrendous for adult brains let alone developing ones going through puberty.

    5. Organic_Hamster_2961 on

      I live in a bush camp for work during the summer where we have very limited wifi. It’s still possible to use social media but it’s a lot less convenient with such slow/inconsistent internet. It just being slightly more difficult to use social media makes a massive difference in my experience. Everyone in camp just hangs out like we’re back in the 1990s. I think people are under estimating how much good it would accomplish to do something like this even if it isn’t implemented perfectly.

      Edit: the problem with trying to quit a social media addiction is that practically everyone I know IRL is also addicted to social media. If I try to take a break from social media during most of the year I just alternate between walking alone or reading alone. When I’m at work and surrounded by other people who are also off the social media I don’t even think about social media.

    6. It wouldn’t even need to involve ID or anything. I have controls on my kids’ accounts. Right now with the legal age being 13, once my son turned 13 he started receiving emails from Google and Meta (VR set) telling him he can choose to set his accounts to remove parent supervision. Telling him he can choose to add and speak to whichever contacts he chooses. If the legal age was something like 16 I could maintain certain controls while still giving my kids access to their accounts and having the choice to block or allow certain content and privileges.

      TLDR: the government doesn’t have to create a ‘nanny state’. They can simply make it so these companies can’t exploit kids the moment they turn 13.

      Edit to add: these are screenshots of the emails and friend suggestions he started receiving the week he turned 13 https://imgur.com/a/pNyWkRA

    7. I know all the helicopter parents will hate this, but child mental health and development would improve so much if we implemented age restrictions on smart phones and tablets.

    8. MarlboroOneHunnit on

      This is 100% a parenting decision, not a government decision at the federal level. Parents are to moderate their child’s online footprint, not the government.

      How did we get here?

    9. timberwolfwatcher on

      I’m not in favour of kids on social media. But I don’t know how strongly I’m in favour of government announcing universal bans.

      The British government recently announced mandatory digital ID. That became unpopular. So the government then switched tack to “we’re banning social media for those under 16… but you’ll need to verify your age as part of that” which basically is a step towards digital ID it couldn’t sell the public.

      I’m not saying Canada is going to go that way and there’s early signs in Australia that it’s been a good move. I’m just concerned about overreach, I guess.

    Leave A Reply