this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
148 points (93.0% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
2869 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would usually agree with this statement, but the truth is that social media does way more harm than good when it comes to teenagers.
Is it really the government's job to police what every teen does on the Internet though? I think that's for the parents to do.
It is the parents job, but what do you do when the parents don't do that job?
There's a lot of things parents should be doing but some don't. That however is a whole different argument.
That's my point. A parent should keep a child out of a fire, right? If they don't, do we as a society let the child burn because it was unlucky enough to have crappy parents?
I'd be perfectly happy with this answer if the only states proposing this "for the children!" nonsense weren't deep red racist bigot states that want ro police women across state borders.
If red states are doing something I want to do the opposite.
When it comes to the big corporate platforms, yes.
When it comes to the Fediverse, no.
Then let parents deal with it. This conservative "for the chillldrun" talking point always ends in cons trying to take us back to 1750.
Most parents either care too little or too much about what their children do.
It is better to take some things to a more neutral ground.