DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Social Media bans for under 16's

Australia have done it - 2 months ago. It's early days and a lot of teens close to 16 are reporting still being able to access based on age verification scans etc.

Spain is about to do it. The UK has announced a review of what a ban would look like for under 16's. Greece also.

I was wondering what individual's takes are on this? Musk and others have gone full attack calling these countries fascist and claiming it's a restriction of freedom of speech - many people believe no matter how hard it is for Social Media companies to do it - they need to be held to the same standards as other media (radio and print) for any content their platforms are used to spread and promote.

I'll leave aside the lunacy of Musk talking about fascism while the US has masked agents running around pulling anyone over they like without cause, just because the color of their skin - or turning up at their house when someone has recorded video of those agents in public. I do not see an issue with beginning to limit the age some kids are online and being groomed or brainwashed by SM content. Certainly I don't think kids as young as 8 should be on there. And maybe a real and effective ban on kids accessing **some** but not necessarily all of the content before they turn 16 is more than justified. . . I am assuming as this gains momentum the enforcement and mechanism for restriction will be more refined and effective.

I am also in favor of holding the SM companies themselves accountable for the content their platform spread and promote - whether it is hate speech or malicious lies that if it were in print or over the air, would get a publisher or broadcaster in jeopardy. It seems like an impossible challenge given the numbers involved - but with AI and the profits these companies generate it would seem the crying and hand wringing that you hear is more for show than anything else.

It might be that opinions follow political persuasion or maybe/hopefully this is something there is more commonality on?

Two separate comments to your post:

First, I don't have any issues with the age restriction.
You have to be 16 to drive,
You have to be 18 to vote,
You have to be 21 to drink alcohol,
You have to be 35 to be eligible to become president

I actually wouldn't be opposed to the restriction age being 23, or at least 18
Biochemically our brains are still developing until age 23
I feel that would be a good age of restriction
(I feel alcohol should be 23 as well but different topic)
Pychosocially 18 makes the most sense to me.


Second, regarding holding platforms accountable:
On one hand people say these platforms should be held responsible for what gets posted
On the other, poeple say they shouldn't be allowed to block/censor what people post
To me these seem mutaually exclusive

I don't know which is the better option.
That seems like a topic that would sustain it's own thread

Age restrictions are common for many things in regards to minors. I don't see this as being any different. At the very least they should not have any access to social media during school hours.

I am immediately against anything that Australia & the UK have to say these days regarding free speech.

In a nutshell, however, I say that this is where the government needs to stay away. It isn't their place, this is the place of the parents. Period.

I wouldn't object to that at all, except it should NOT be getting done at the federal level, ever. At most, each state should have its own say, but even that is too heavy handed in my opinion and I think it should be left to Counties or perhaps School Districts.
Mostly, though, it should be the parents and the simplest solution is for phone providers to add appropriate blocking tools to their Parental Controls suites.

This is not something government needs to control.

Generally, I am against govt coming in and trying to care for, or parent (or whatever the applicable verb is given the situation) people in lieu of the generally responsible person. Parents should be the one to make this decision.

That said, social media is the devil (and I'm saying that with a straight face). Like many things related to the internet, it was born out of good intentions but has rapidly twisted into something different... and THEN the corporations got involved and started pushing to monetize it any way they could (I remember when a hot topic of debate was if/how FaceBook would become profitable).


So my principle of limiting govt overreach remains the same, but it's also going to be hard for me to stir up outrage over limiting exposure to social media.

I find it quite odd these days when people do and do not think the federal government should get involved. Keeping up with it is almost like playing a game of whack a mole.

Sounds like you are being groomed what to think about those two countries and their politics... I know of some headline stories that Musk and others have tried to spread about the UK and Australia - they are false and not grounded in reality of what life in those countries is like.

London is a safe city contrary to what some outlets want to say - safer than most cities of the same size. Homicide in London 2025 - 97 people in a city of 9 million people.

The UK prosecuting individuals for telling a rioting mob to go and burn and set fire to a property where migrants were being held (and they did) is against UK laws. If you think that's anti freedom of speech, or somehow fascist or communist then I disagree.

If it's a different media story that is compelling you, then let me know the basis for your statement.