Kanada verspricht, soziale Medien für Kinder unter 16 Jahren einzuschränken. Teenager sagen, dass sie „immer einen Weg finden“
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/social-media-ban-bill-teens-parents-reax-9.7232286
Kanada verspricht, soziale Medien für Kinder unter 16 Jahren einzuschränken. Teenager sagen, dass sie „immer einen Weg finden“
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/social-media-ban-bill-teens-parents-reax-9.7232286
14 Kommentare
Some will, I’m sure. Some kids find a way to buy booze and cannabis. But making access more difficult will almost always deter some people, and that’s a win.
I’m so tired of this discussion, go after the real perpetrators, the social media companies and their addictive algorithms.
I think a potential alternative than prescribing a system where everyone uploads ID to verify ages, is to put the onus on the producer rather than the consumer. Make it the social media tech giants responsibility to come up with a system to not have kids on their system, and add a fee system to penalize when they fail. Make the fee big enough that its not simply a cost of doing business. Let the companies with billions and trillions come up with the R&D to do it.
>Kitchener, Ont., student Chloe Kizito is a teen fact checker with MediaSmarts and a youth journalist. (CBC)
>
>“I strongly disagree with the ban just because I see social media as such a pivotal platform…. I post a lot about advocacy, causes and issues that matter to me. And I also use it as an insight to [connect with] other children who are … very like-minded
I’ve seen MediaSmart’s stuff before. It’s pretty well done. MediaSmarts is a charity that seeks to teach people, primarily youths, about misinformation and media literacy.
But. Their Instagram has 6000 followers.
I’m sorry but for the last 20 years we’ve tried letting social media flourish unrestricted and hoping that good people can get the word out to not trust it all. It hasn’t worked. We need to take a new and more forceful approach.
Most will just go back to using phone numbers and text messaging, and the upside is they’ll consume less algorithmic garbage and less of their data will be fed into social media databases. I am highly concerned, however, that an abrupt removal of social media may cause upheaval and significant strain on the mental health of those habituated and dependant on it for socialization. I am very afraid that this could lead to an uptick in serious irrevocable incidents among youth.
The biggest question I have is how? I see the liberal talking points. They talk about what they aim to achieve and what the goal is. I don’t think I’ve heard a single proposition on how it will be done or enforced.
It’s like saying “we’re going to the moon today” but we haven’t even built the space ship yet.
I’m tired of all the political marketing BS. Tell us HOW you plan on doing this. Not what the proposed outcome is.
If parents don’t like it they should install parental controls on the devices for the kids, the Government should not be using this as a scapegoat to invade everyone’s privacy
So we’re at the digital version of „get the older brother of legal age to buy some porn mags for the bros“ from the early 2000s.
That’s pretty much what will happen.
This was tried in Australia and was a total failure. Kids found a way around it. And it just gives Palantir more of our personal data.
Are we kicking all the tech challenged elders off the internet? Any gate has to be easy enough for IT to walk someone’s whose been ignoring computer for 40 years through without difficulty.
This is the wrong solution to the right problem. Yes, social media is a disease and a threat to our democracy and society. It is a vehicle of foreign interference.
However, the onus should not be put on individuals and definitely not restrict individual freedom.
The government has power to fix it at the source and it should fixed there for everyone.
This is an area where I prefer EU approach ( even though not perfect). When faced with a problem, they try to attack the producers of the problem, not the consumers.
This doesn’t protect kids in the slightest. This does, however, make it easier for survailence and data collection from both government and social media.
Having interacted with many teens over the last few years, I would be incredibly surprised if many of them under 16 could „find a way“ around social media bans.
Looking at our numeracy and literacy rates over time, if 50% would be able to „find a way“ 20 years ago, maybe 10% could now.
This would essentially mean that anyone using social media would need to verify their ID to gain access to whatever is deemed “harmful” which isn’t even clearly stated in the legislation. This also assumes we will always have a benevolent government, what if we get maple MAGA in power and they deem anything involving “LGBTQ” education as “harmful”, or political discourse as “harmful. The legislation is too vague and assumes things will always be nice and pleasant which I don’t think we can in this day and age.