If you grow up one of the tiny % of kids that grow up without one, it will result in some developmental disadvantages I think. On the other hand, modern social media will impose another set of disadvantages, but fact is that social media and the internet in general are a large part of modern society, so not being able to interface with it until you’re 18 will leave you behind a learning curve.
Actual studies say that kids that use phones and laptops are actually less intelligent. I think no phones until 18 would be doable. No laptops would be hard though.
The general consensus is the studies say that usage of devices impacts everyone. Let’s not cherry pick a particular minority here, just to explain that stripping their already insignificant rights is a good thing. In addition teenagers, which are not children, are dismissed here. According to studies they are more similar to adults in therms of decision making capabilities - dismissing that is ageism.
I think no phones until 18 would be doable
This is essentially the same speak as the laws trying to ban privacy for all. First of all where is the consent? Also, what is the sense of punishing the minority for being who they are, stripping their rights, if the perpetrators are still unharmed? In essence, phone and laptop usage wouldn’t be so bad for anyone (not just kids or teenagers), if we focused on the actual problems not turn to discrimination.
Someone who didn’t touch a phone until 18 is going to be so susceptible to scams, catfishes, propaganda, digital manipulation, etc, that I definitely think it is a dangerous nuclear option. Controlled, monitored by good parents, layered introduction is definitely better in my opinion.
No idea why would they be more susceptible to scams. You think they would be more gullible? Or that they would be so confused about the ability to talk over phone? Smartphones for kids are security devices that let them communicate with parents so you would have to replace them with something, either dumbphones or smartwatches. Both would let them communicate with people over phone so it’s not like at 18 they would be exposed to something completely new.
Still, laptops would be more complicated because how do you ban those? A lot of grooming and child abuse happens through Roblox. How would you solve it without some sort of age verification? I think we either have to accept that kids will be exposed to those things or do what Chat Control 2.0 is proposing and impose age verification in high risk platforms. Since I don’t have kids I’m fine with just accepting the risk…
Please stop trying to justify fascist laws. Ageism is still discrimination. And like people, without prior experience it is quite logical they will be susceptible. This of course applies to anyone any age.
The only problem here is the predatory system that is designed to exploit people. The victims are not the predators so justifying how their rights should be stripped based on an arbitrary number makes this whole argument insignificant.
Like other types of discrimination: racism, sexism, there are other ways than to introduce more social segmentation which always leads to fascism.
This doesn’t make any sens. They would be susceptible without what experience? With scammers? You think children learn about scammers by interacting with them? I remember when I got my first “Nigerian prince” scam email. I was maybe 16 and I had no idea what it was. No one knew back them. What previous experience would help me deal with it? I’m sure being older would help but I’m not sure if someone trying to scam me when I was even younger would. There would just be higher change of me falling for it.
Also, the system is not predatory, there are simply predators in the system. The age verification laws are like bad tasting batteries and child proof bottles. Parents should make sure their kids don’t have access to batteries or pills but since a lot of them don’t care the government has to step in and put some protections in place. You can’t simply ban pedophiles from roblox and you can’t trust parents to oversee what their kids are doing online so politicians come up with some safety measures. Unfortunately all solutions are huge pain in the ass for everyone else.
Saying that age is just an ‘arbitrary number’ is delusional. We don’t let kids buy cigarettes, alcohol, drive or vote. The concept that kids can’t be trusted to make informed decisions is well established in every society in the world. Calling it ‘ageism’ is silly.
Also, the system is not predatory, there are simply predators in the system
I’m just going to leave it at that. Glorifying capitalism is onething but adding discrimination to the mix, and the insifignificance of experience, and the apparent need for fascism to protect the kids and eliminate the need for parenting is absurd to say the least.
The fact that predators are enabled to flourish within the system, while minorities are suppressed and their rights stripped is exactly why that statement is invalid.
This. Smart watches exist. Kids don’t need smartphones.
If you grow up one of the tiny % of kids that grow up without one, it will result in some developmental disadvantages I think. On the other hand, modern social media will impose another set of disadvantages, but fact is that social media and the internet in general are a large part of modern society, so not being able to interface with it until you’re 18 will leave you behind a learning curve.
Actual studies say that kids that use phones and laptops are actually less intelligent. I think no phones until 18 would be doable. No laptops would be hard though.
The general consensus is the studies say that usage of devices impacts everyone. Let’s not cherry pick a particular minority here, just to explain that stripping their already insignificant rights is a good thing. In addition teenagers, which are not children, are dismissed here. According to studies they are more similar to adults in therms of decision making capabilities - dismissing that is ageism.
This is essentially the same speak as the laws trying to ban privacy for all. First of all where is the consent? Also, what is the sense of punishing the minority for being who they are, stripping their rights, if the perpetrators are still unharmed? In essence, phone and laptop usage wouldn’t be so bad for anyone (not just kids or teenagers), if we focused on the actual problems not turn to discrimination.
Someone who didn’t touch a phone until 18 is going to be so susceptible to scams, catfishes, propaganda, digital manipulation, etc, that I definitely think it is a dangerous nuclear option. Controlled, monitored by good parents, layered introduction is definitely better in my opinion.
No idea why would they be more susceptible to scams. You think they would be more gullible? Or that they would be so confused about the ability to talk over phone? Smartphones for kids are security devices that let them communicate with parents so you would have to replace them with something, either dumbphones or smartwatches. Both would let them communicate with people over phone so it’s not like at 18 they would be exposed to something completely new.
Still, laptops would be more complicated because how do you ban those? A lot of grooming and child abuse happens through Roblox. How would you solve it without some sort of age verification? I think we either have to accept that kids will be exposed to those things or do what Chat Control 2.0 is proposing and impose age verification in high risk platforms. Since I don’t have kids I’m fine with just accepting the risk…
Please stop trying to justify fascist laws. Ageism is still discrimination. And like people, without prior experience it is quite logical they will be susceptible. This of course applies to anyone any age.
The only problem here is the predatory system that is designed to exploit people. The victims are not the predators so justifying how their rights should be stripped based on an arbitrary number makes this whole argument insignificant.
Like other types of discrimination: racism, sexism, there are other ways than to introduce more social segmentation which always leads to fascism.
This doesn’t make any sens. They would be susceptible without what experience? With scammers? You think children learn about scammers by interacting with them? I remember when I got my first “Nigerian prince” scam email. I was maybe 16 and I had no idea what it was. No one knew back them. What previous experience would help me deal with it? I’m sure being older would help but I’m not sure if someone trying to scam me when I was even younger would. There would just be higher change of me falling for it.
Also, the system is not predatory, there are simply predators in the system. The age verification laws are like bad tasting batteries and child proof bottles. Parents should make sure their kids don’t have access to batteries or pills but since a lot of them don’t care the government has to step in and put some protections in place. You can’t simply ban pedophiles from roblox and you can’t trust parents to oversee what their kids are doing online so politicians come up with some safety measures. Unfortunately all solutions are huge pain in the ass for everyone else.
Saying that age is just an ‘arbitrary number’ is delusional. We don’t let kids buy cigarettes, alcohol, drive or vote. The concept that kids can’t be trusted to make informed decisions is well established in every society in the world. Calling it ‘ageism’ is silly.
I’m just going to leave it at that. Glorifying capitalism is onething but adding discrimination to the mix, and the insifignificance of experience, and the apparent need for fascism to protect the kids and eliminate the need for parenting is absurd to say the least.
The fact that predators are enabled to flourish within the system, while minorities are suppressed and their rights stripped is exactly why that statement is invalid.