The move was due to fears that messaging functions on the platforms allowed strangers to groom children, according to the newspaper. It suggested similar reselling platforms, Depop and Facebook Marketplace, would also be included in the list of banned sites.
I don’t even know what to say to this LOL.
There’s already plans to ban social media for under 16s AFAIK
Not sure if that’ll apply to Lemmy or not, but I guess Lemmy servers could just geoblock visitors from regions that enforce this.
They can try, but all it takes for full access to Lemmy (or Mastodon etc) is one instance that isn’t based in the UK and doesn’t care about their laws.
Australia tried and the local instance encouraged people to send in a photo of a beer at a pub or an age indicative review on a movie to prove age, seeing as the law didn’t define what constitutes verification.
Honestly, good. This isn’t a place for children.
And why not? I think teenagers need exposure to the world at large, especially in a very human environment like lemmy is. I’d fully accept a horde of teenagers on Lemmy, because regardless of what they encounter here, i can ensure you that corporate social media is a lot more harmful.
The alternative is letting a horde of digitally absolutely naive 18 y.o. loose over the internet every year. That will go down well.
Tbqh, I’d prefer to have a place where adult conversation can take place without immature people chiming in. If they want to lurk and observe, fine. I, personally, don’t want to converse with children on the internet.
And the beauty of the fediverse is that you can create your own server with a higher age requirement. (But you’ll still get immature people aged 25+ inundating you with inane memes, because humans.)
Sure, but these “immature people” will probably stay in low-stakes communities for memes and such, where a bit of immaturity won’t hurt. But they also will be exposed to new ideas, and without young people engaging with these ideas, even if it might be annoying, these might simply die out.
A 15 year old isn’t a child.
Cool. So Epstein did nothing wrong. Got it!
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.
There is a very clear difference between sexual abuse of minors and the ability to communicate. One is bad regardless of how you frame it, the other is dependent on the respective medium and how it is moderated.
Giving a 15 y.o. a platform to discuss stuff with peers, even if there are people out there who might try to groom them, is a good thing. The groomers are the ones that have to be reigned in, not the teens.
I completely agree and think that the proposal in the article really misses the mark.
However, to claim the issue is moot because “15 year olds are not children” (as some have done in this thread) is patently ridiculous. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion exposes its flaws — which was the point of my previous comment.
“Not a child” doesn’t mean “is an adult”. We’re talking about an intermediate stage where they need to be able to gradually take on more responsibility for themselves, but still need extra protection from things like sexual predators because their risk assessment abilities aren’t yet fully developed.
Fuck off mate, stop trying to change the narrative.
This isn’t a place for 15 year olds.
This question for you too, why not? This place would be a better experience than any corporate media for teenagers. I ensure you that the vast majority of mods and admins here take a hard stance against grooming, and any evidence of such behavior would lead to instant bans for the culprits.
On Facebook not even AI-generated CSAM causes mods to spring into action without media attention.
Does a 15 year old have a nuanced take on tax policy? On worker’s rights? On social security or welfare? My gut tells me no in almost every situation.
I’m not necessarily opposed to younger people being able to view discussions around political topics, but I question their ability to interact with informed opinions on said subjects.
While I believe this is largely correct, it does not support your conclusion.
You are assuming that the participation would need to be to the benefit of the community to be worthwhile. That’s not the case. The party which stands to benefit most is the teen themselves. They may not be able to meaningfully participate in the kinds of discussion examples you have listed, but they could try.
After all, not being an ignorant dumbass is a skill that must be learned, and one that (as evidenced by this thread) many adults never managed to learn for themselves.
I agree - being a part of society is a learning process, and this process always takes effort from both sides, the learner and the society. In a social media context, this equates to accepting that there may be questions asked in good faith even when basic and not yet well developed standpoints being communicated, which will then benefit from feedback.
This is a valid take that I hadn’t really considered. While I still prefer not to engage with literal children, I will concede that it may help for future interactions.
I still l think they could gain experience in online interactions through age-oriented platforms though. Lemmy does not strike me as a welcoming place for minors.
Yeah, it’s a legitimately difficult situation trying to balance effective safety measures with the needs of teens and young adults to be able to participate in civil discourse. And I’ll be the first to admit that I do not have a good answer for how to handle this.
Also I’m pretty new around here but so far my experience has been that Lemmy does not strike me as a welcoming place(period) so that likely goes double for anyone with an undercooked prefrontal cortex.
Communication only between minors has the disadvantage that there is a whole populations worth of years of experiences missing in their daily lives. A lot of this knowledge is aquired though cultural osmosis, which also means minors benefit from seeing, hearing and taking part in “grown-up” discussions.
As I said, i’d rather see some teens here than on Instagram or TikTok. People around here are a lot more willing to explain concepts or sincerely engage with someone than what i experienced on other platforms. There’s a lot less cult of personality going on here, and moderation is leagues above what we can currently expect from commercial platforms. All in all, both the fediverse in terms of activity and teens would benefit if they met.
No, but where are they gonna learn all those things? These concepts are transferred through social contacts, and they won’t acquire them when they are isolated.
And learning about things is as much about saying what i think as it is about getting feedback to that thought process. It’s not to say that people shouldn’t try to get some basics about stuff before uttering crap, but if you want the younger generations to actually engage with social concepts, it does not help if they are excluded from the discussion.
That is completely ignorant of issues involving discrimination, clearly ageism is just the tip of the iceberg here - my gut tells me you are just as naive when it comes to gender or even race.
Everyone reading this, please just block this user as this is clearly a troll. No point wasting your mental capacity on this fud.
Have you even read my other responses? I’m genuinely engaging in good faith and you’re calling me a troll. Have a look at my profile. You have no clue.
Ageist
Shouldn’t you be in class somewhere?
I didn’t say I was 15, just to not be ageist to 15 year olds
So, if we’re done with the snarky comments and insults, answer me this. What benefit does it do either party for under 16s to have direct interactions with random adults in their 30s/40s+? Because that’s most of the user base here. Not everyone is out to engage in good faith and many younger folks may not see dangerous situations ahead of time.
I don’t see a situation where a random 15 year old and a random 40 year old need to interact here. The maturity levels, intersts, and life experiences are completely different between them, and I’m having a hard time seeing why a middle aged adult would want to have serious interactions with a literal child. Sure, they’re a teen, but they aren’t legally adults.
Because teenagers often exclude, harass, and verbally abuse others in the same age group for no real reason. If you’re a teen who often ends up on the receiving end of that, then interacting with older people may be the only way you can have a normal conversation. Talking to adults is a last defense against missing a stage of social development and developing depression and social phobia.
That doesn’t mean that you are personally required to talk to teens, but cutting them off from adult society completely is cruel.
And it is possible for a teen and an adult to share an interest—baseball, or sewing, or entomology, or whatever. Some people like talking to others who are enthusiastic about the same subject, even if that person is young and “still learning”. Some adults even enjoy teaching.
For one example, if they’re trans and find info about diy HRT younger than they would have otherwise and are spared years of irreversible changes and dysphoria.
Or, you know, just that they’re people who should have a voice and ears and not be barred from the wider societal conversation from everything about TV shows to national politics to educational policies, that they should have a voice in, and are indeed pubescent and more mature than actual children at thinking.
To engage with other people, practicising their online interaction skills, as they’re not going to suddenly be magically more able to resist disinformation and stuff at 16 because of a few months of brain development, the more important thing is practice and being exposed to online content.
But 16 year olds are a-okay?
Did I say that? I don’t believe I did.
Hmm, I don’t know about that. But I do know that it isn’t a place for bigoted pricks.
If that’s directed at me you can go fuck yourself. I’ve substantiated my opinion and it’s not based on “bigotry”, which I’m not even sure is thing regarding age.