Support NeoGAF

[Wandering Leopard]

They could have done it differently to achieve the same result.

Things like this make me wonder about these decision makers, for people who've supposed to gone to the better institutions - most of the time, their decisions do not reflect it.

 

[Brucey]

Child abuse videos don't abuse kids either. Nor do rape videos sexually assault anyone. As I said, arbitrary. But please continue the insults instead of discussing like a rational adult.

Have you ever seen bodycam footage of a cop shooting? Should the people that share that video also be jailed? Basically, in the US you aren't going to get locked up for sharing a Facebook livestream. In other countries, where you don't have as many freedoms, you might be jailed. To protect "the community". Yet no criminal charges for Facebook itself.

 

[Zathalus]

Have you ever seen bodycam footage of a cop shooting? Should the people that share that video also be jailed? Basically, in the US you aren't going to get locked up for sharing a Facebook livestream. In other countries, where you don't have as many freedoms, you might be jailed. To protect "the community". Yet no criminal charges for Facebook itself.

Pretty big difference between body cam footage and a mass murder terrorist streamed video. If Facebook doesn't take the video down or actively moderate things like that then they should face consequences as well.

 

[Mistake]

One of my favorite channels covered this issue

 

[Vestal]

Feels like parental failure more than anything.

Both my girls have smartphones and have some Social Media apps. We put screen time restrictions and educate them on life. Both are honor students and amazing kids. (11-15).

It has also allowed them to keep friendships that otherwise would have been very difficult due to kids moving out of town/state.


Just like with everything in life, it's about moderation and limiting the excesses.

 

[FunkMiller]

Have you ever seen bodycam footage of a cop shooting? Should the people that share that video also be jailed? Basically, in the US you aren't going to get locked up for sharing a Facebook livestream. In other countries, where you don't have as many freedoms, you might be jailed. To protect "the community". Yet no criminal charges for Facebook itself.

Ha ha ha. Yeah. You're so 'free'.

The main problem with subject matters like this is everybody else on the planet in the western world is a lot less paranoid about their governments than Americans are.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Ha ha ha. Yeah. You're so 'free'.

The main problem with subject matters like this is everybody else on the planet in the western world is a lot less paranoid about their governments than Americans are.

You never answered my question:

The amount of absolute shit that spews out onto the internet every day in the form of disinformation has reached an absurd level, and something needs to be done to stop it. Any perceived paranoid 'danger 'from government institutions is utterly dwarved by the very real and present danger of people being fed bullshit from every angle.

Sure, let's have our government protect us from really bad people. For example, when the government decides that someone is "the most notorious liar in the country" or "the most dangerous" national security threat, or especially if they're an extremist who incites "hatred and violence," that person should probably be stopped. They should be prevented from spreading their misinformation or their hate. And you could make that argument, except the US government said all of those things about Martin Luther King Jr, which hopefully gives some people reading this a reason to consider their thoughts on the subject.

Considering the entire history of humanity, why do you trust the government to be the arbiters of truth, and why do you trust that power will always be used correctly by not only people currently in charge, but also everyone else who will follow?

 

[FunkMiller]

You never answered my question:

I did though. You're American. Americans are more paranoid about their government. The rest of us certainly don't think our governments are wonderful, but we don't believe they are out to get us. That's why this new law in Australia has been accepted as a positive thing.

https://au.yougov.com/politics/arti...ocial-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians

 

[JimmyRustler]

Feels like parental failure more than anything.

Both my girls have smartphones and have some Social Media apps. We put screen time restrictions and educate them on life. Both are honor students and amazing kids. (11-15).

It has also allowed them to keep friendships that otherwise would have been very difficult due to kids moving out of town/state.


Just like with everything in life, it's about moderation and limiting the excesses.

It is 100% a parental failure, but thar doesn't really change anything. Way to many parents don't care or are addicted themselves, so the law stepping in was just a question of time.

Same with food… Something will come here too in the next years, I guarantee most people just have no self control whatsoever.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It is 100% a parental failure, but thar doesn't really change anything. Way to many parents don't care or are addicted themselves, so the law stepping in was just a question of time.

Same with food… Something will come here too in the next years, I guarantee most people just have no self control whatsoever.

Ya. Government has to get involved when consumers or companies cant control themselves. And unfortunately, when shit hits the fan the gov will do blanket policies to protect the 10% uncontrolled morons when the other 90% are fine and dont need babysitting. But they cant or wont bother trying to do individualized policies (like people needing to pass their own driver's license test) because for something subjective like who can and cant handle social media would take forever to evaluate in an efficient way.

It's really no different than the gov giving up and just taxing people to cover drug addicts. Instead of grilling a drunk costs of detox and medical stays $30,000, every tax payer (even people who dont even drink booze at all) chips in $20 each to cover them.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Feels like parental failure more than anything.

Even if, kids should not be punished for their parents' failures because they didn't choose which family to be born in. You are approaching it sensibly, great for you, others are not due to various circumstances (not only because as parents they are stupid). Then the kids are left having to defend themselves vs. an army of behavioural PhDs working around the clock of making the apps more and more addicting.

Even with screen time in place you cannot change what content is shown to your kids via an algorithm, and we already know enough to see how that prioritises the most vile and terrible of contents, since this drives engagement and for an algorithm more engagement = good.

People survived before social media apps by e.g. writing letters to one another, which as we know from countless research requires more attention and focus, which is beneficial in multitude of other activities in life.. Your kids would have done that as well if they didn't have smartphones.

 

[winjer]

Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

Australia said on Wednesday it will add YouTube to sites covered by its world-first ban on social media for teenagers, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the Alphabet-owned (GOOGL.O), opens new tab video-sharing site and potentially setting up a legal challenge.

The decision came after the internet regulator urged the government last month to overturn the YouTube carve-out, citing a survey that found 37% of minors reported harmful content on the site, the worst showing for a social media platform.
"I'm calling time on it," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement highlighting that Australian children were being negatively affected by online platforms, and reminding social media of their social responsibility.
"I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs."
The decision broadens the ban set to take effect in December. YouTube says it is used by nearly three-quarters of Australians aged 13 to 15, and should not be classified as social media because its main activity is hosting videos.
"Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media," a YouTube spokesperson said by email.
Since the government said last year it would exempt YouTube due to its popularity with teachers, platforms covered by the ban, such as Meta's (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab and TikTok, have complained.
They say YouTube has key similarities to their products, including letting users interact and recommending content through an algorithm based on activity.
The ban outlaws YouTube accounts for those younger than 16, allowing parents and teachers to show videos on it to minors.