Rich people do not allows kids under 13 to use smartphones/ tablet due this decrease mental development.
Social media ban under 16 is understandable due this will decrees suicides ratio in young ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with this is anyone can make a "study" and make up statistics. I'd be more apt to believe dumber and more manipulatable kids flock to social media than smart ones. However there's no real fool proof way to know.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with this is anyone can make a "study" and make up statistics
Not when the research is published in a reputable journal. Sure, I can write a paper about a perpetuum mobile machine I've invented and fill it with nonsense, but it won't be accepted by Nature or Science, who employ world-wide experts in their fields that review, agree on, and publish good science.
Sometimes a wrong study will fall through the cracks, and might even make an impact on the scientifical society in a bad way. A great example is the "vaccines cause autism" study published in Lancet in 1998. That study was so full of bad science it caused tons of other studies to cover the same topic, and they've all discredited the original findings. In 2010 the paper was retracted by the journal and the whole fiasco remains a stain on the scientific community.
But to say that any study can be fake is to be against scientific progress.
Also, what's that about smarter kids not using social media? How does that relate to the comment you've responded to?
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole concept of social media seems to be looking for approval. I would think anyone who is capable of seeing reason would understand they don't need other people's approval to be who they want to be. Maybe I am wrong? I mean I guess to some degree you still need societies approval due to laws and such.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do believe you are wrong. To seek approval is basic human nature, everyone does all the time it even when they are not aware of it. You are doing it by replying to other comments, you want to see people agree with you, I'm doing the same. Influencers do it because they want to be popular, Musk does it by posting inane shit on Twitter and banning people who disagree. Everyone does. The only part where "seeing reason" comes into play is when you are aware you don't consciously need the approval of certain people.
Rich kids seek as much approval as poor kids, they are both developing in identical ways and need this approval to create healthy connections with other people. There is no difference in reasoning skills between children in this aspect. Rich kids are not explicitly more intelligent than poor kids. And the original comment stated it's the parents that forbid smartphones for their kids, not the kids going "social media, nah don't need it".
And in relation to above, social media is acting as an unhealthy connection, but people with an underdeveloped sense of trust, understanding, and context will not realise it. Just like there were, are, and will be child molesters that act like friendly uncles or family friends to their victims, there will be actors on social media that wish to imprint young minds on their ideas by acting like a healthy connection on the internet, presenting a false sense of approval. It's just that the latter is extremely easier to accomplish by magnitudes more people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually no, I don't want to see people agree with me. I'm not that person who only wants to talk with people who agree with me but at the same time if people can't be civil I'm not going to sit around trading insults. I can fully function on my own without anyone else's approval or input but there is a mental health concern if no social interaction is taken. I am merely here to socially interact and nothing more. You did however agree with me with your last paragraph whether you realize it or not. But at any rate not everyone is out to play the popularity game, some people do just fine not fitting in.
Comment has been collapsed.
You've made this thread. You hold a certain opinion about what the topic at hand. You're expressing it throughout the thread, most often with people that seem to agree with you, where you re-affirm what they said or try to extend it.
This is a form of approval, which in turn is a form of "social interaction". Now, you didn't literally think "oh I need people to agree with me on this topic, I need to create a thread", because we do not think like this to ourselves. If only human psychology were this simple, we would live in a utopia (or dystopia, depends who's on top). But you are not some impartial participant whose only reason of commenting is to "socially interact". If you genuinely think that way, you would not respond to any comments by praising or disagreeing with them. The best you'd do is thank them for commenting.
And I so hate when people say "yeah you agree with me without knowing". I know exactly what I "agreed" with you. You think that because I said child molestation used to be a problem, it reinforces a point you've already made elsewhere about how the internet will never worsen that problem. And that's because you've completely ignored the last sentence in that paragraph, just so you can stick it to me and say "you agree without even realising". Only true if you remove context to seek false approval.
Comment has been collapsed.
You should go back and read. I replied to everyone. I didn't tell anyone they are wrong I merely explained my own thoughts. I really don't care who thinks what, I just want to share my own ideas as a form of social interaction. I mean if you need to think I need approval then uh go right ahead. I can reply to who I want how I want, I mean I still have that right at least. Merely saying "thank you" is not social interaction, I'm sorry if you think otherwise but it's not going to do much good as far as socializing. Also you seem to just be degenerating this into some argument because we have different views. You have your views, I have mine. I can live with you having different views, can you do the same? The internet makes a lot of things easier, I've said that numerous times and I understand fully what that means. I still think it is up to each individual whether that is good or bad. Inherently by itself it is neither. This is just one of those logical fallacies that ALWAYS arises when anything is made easier to do from advancement. People been saying that same thing since civilization came into being. They are going to say it long after we are gone. I'm not here to argue or trade insults so if you want to look at that as approval then hey whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also you seem to just be degenerating this into some argument because we have different views
Due to your own fault, when you responded to one of my comments with a statement on how you're not seeking approval, while ignoring the other points I have made. Not the first time either. It's true, I could have been the better man and said "if you don't wish to discuss, I won't either", because you're more preoccupied by defending yourself than your points. I guess I'll do that now.
Comment has been collapsed.
What? Ok then. Well it was nice to hear your thoughts I guess. Uh "thank you".
Comment has been collapsed.
I would prefer an auto-reject solitudes of minors on social media. Mostly cause I'm a 29 years old woman who preffers not to be surrounded by minors at the moment of sharing or making jokes.
Even in game guilds I try to avoid them. Is easier when we are all adults.
Comment has been collapsed.
It really is but signing away this kind of power to your government is very bad and believe me they wouldn't stop there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh of course not. Also, I started playing and ussing Internet when I was 12-14 years old. It would be silly try to kick them out of socialmedia, etc. But I think there is a big lack of control from their parents and also school should be more insistent about this kind of dangerous stuff on the web. The problem is always the same: we always thing bad things are those who happens to others, and we will never go throught that. Even we, adults, can be naive sometimes related to Internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
🙄・・・
In fact, I had already sent them a support ticket with other concerns that I believe will cause problems for SG operations in the future.
This is the content of the ticket.
Kappaking
Labor backs 16 as the minimum age to use social media ahead of national cabinet meeting - ABC News
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/labor-backs-social-media-age-minimum-16-years/104571186
Australia proposes social media ban for children under 16 : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/nx-s1-5182775/australia-social-media-ban-children
But parental consent would not entitle a child under 16 to access social media.
Earlier this year, the government began a trial of age-restriciton technologies. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the online watchdog that will police compliance, will use the results of that trial to provide platforms with guidance on what reasonable steps they can take.Statement: announcement of age assurance trial | eSafety Commissioner
https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement-announcement-of-age-assurance-trial
🙄
I don't think it will have an immediate impact, but maybe one day Australia will have something to say about whether or not Steam and Steamgifts activities are strictly age-restricted when they are classified as social networking sites.
I am wondering if someone should post this in a discussion sometime soon.
I think back to a long time ago when there was this kind of commotion in Southeast Asia and it got bogged down because it started so abruptly over there.
(I think a Southeast Asian user wrote a lot about it on SG at the time, though.)
📝
Indonesia Steam & Epic etc.... Block?
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/UEj10/indonesia-steam-epic-etc-block
Well, I'm sure the supporters and CGs are busy and if there is a response, we'll just have to wait and see for a week or two.
Both reality and discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
It could certainly be used as a gateway to other things, after all if it is "successful" why would they stop there? There are all kinds of platforms and tools available to invade citizens privacy. Get them used to having no rights and no privacy when they are young and they won't bother to fight for them when they are older. Then they just have to wait for the older generations to die off of just imprison us and strip us of our rights forcefully. I would say that I am surprised by how many people blindly support this but I'm not. Admittedly I am paranoid but I have seen first hand just how authorities operate and I live in the "land of milk and honey". A lot of people seem to think it's make believe that their governments are only out to control them not protect them. That they can't just turn on people's devices when they aren't paying attention to spy on them or collect data. And all they have to do is hide behind blanket statements of probable cause and national security.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember that the Indonesian censorship two years ago was greatly eased as a result of protests immediately after it was implemented. A month later there was a dead letter atmosphere, so I haven't kept a close eye on it from there.
Since then, there have been no additional reports from residents in the SG area, so I'm somewhat relieved. However, I keenly feel as if I'm living in the world of 1984, lurking on Earth.
Recently, there was a discussion with a nuance of "🎣" that seemed like a joke but was actually unsettling political nonsense.
Since the time when net neutrality was significantly undermined, I've been keeping an eye on those reports.
Was it during the Obama presidency? Things started to go wrong around the time he repealed the law guaranteeing net neutrality.
I don't want to monitor TV or the internet, which only have government announcements, so I'm always hoping for interesting topics. 🌕( ｢'Θ')📻💻📡((((((🌏
Comment has been collapsed.
This is good, since parents refuse to parent and social media is harmful for just about everybody, not only kids. Problem is like others have said this is completely unenforceable without a draconian violation of privacy. Hopefully it encourages some people to put away they damn phone and go outside, at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good luck enforcing that.
I recon it is easier to just outright ban smartphones on school property that would solve half the problem already. And if the do need a phone to call someone? Let them have an old style Nokia 3310.
And when they are home well honesty that is called parenting. ( lots of tools out there to have oversight or you know just be active in your kids life)
Comment has been collapsed.
They'll find ways, I mean the government will take as much as people are willing to give them and these days that seems to be a lot indeed.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think it is good and this should be everywhere. minors are easily influenced and easily deceived. social media creates wrong images of standards like beauty wealth and what is conceived as normal. chidren and adults form distorted realities and become unhappy with their own life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Outright ban? No, but... They should at the very least require parental permission, and parents should monitor the social media accounts to protect from predators.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just wondering what people think about this. I do understand it's intent is to protect children since clearly most people online are sexual predators. Sarcasm aside this kind of legislation scares me but maybe I am just being silly.
Comment has been collapsed.