Both the UK & AU have passed legislation in which they aim to “ban” social media for kids -16 (or that’s the excuse they’re using) when its the catalyst for mass surveillance (unfortunately, even if you tell them the truth: it’s either people including your own family consider you paranoid or a conspiracy theorist). To avoid that, one must gather sufficient evidence debunking or dispelling the lies being shoved into the masses via media.
The common defense for this is “think of the children” from either lazy parents or Christian conservatives as that’s the easiest lie ever told besides social media or internet usage (you heard that from games, movies or music restrictions in the past). IMO, “banning” SM outright or trying to reinforce AV towards everyone creates more hassle for both sides (users and companies) as SM companies can face large fines for non-compliance.
If you look at the larger picture: it treads on one’s liberties such as freedom of speech & expression as what appears to be “no SM for -16” soon morphs into a 1984-esque dystopia where people will be detained for speaking their mind or the truth. This is what digital privacy advocates fear, basically saying that internet anonymity will cease or be deemed illegal if people lack critical thinking or can’t see through the fog.
Even though the laws have passed in both countries: it does nothing as people (kids and adults) can still access SM. They know VPN’s exist, banning or trying to lock that under AV will make them look stupid. SM is toxic due to the slop and demographic, but IMO should remain up to the individuals or families rather than the government (all MSM side with the state using “no SM for -16” omitting mass surveillance in the headlines).
MSM pitch the “think of the children” agenda (whilst omitting mass surveillance) as they’re either lobbied by politicians or paid by the state on pushing the narrative of “banning SM for kids -16 alleviates them being cyberbullied, exposure to violent or sexual content” with sharing sob stories trying to pinch people’s heart.
A slightly better argument than “ineffective”, but still not the central reason why it’s bad. I can think of ways to make it work without mass surveillance, but I’m not writing about them because I don’t want to give any politicians who may be reading this any ideas.
So that they can get bullied IRL instead, very much better amirite… /s
You see, I remember being a minor and adults trying to keep me away from violent or sexual content. I still do not see what the fuck is supposed to have changed on my 16th or 18th birthday or whenever that it would be ok afterwards, but not before?!
deleted by creator