Support NeoGAF

[AJUMP23]

If she hangs out with other kids, have to be realistic there’s almost assuredly usage/exposure*

*source: I was a kid once

Oh I am sure. I don't care about exposure. I do care about her having her own account.

 

[ForAcademicPurposes]

 

[sono]

Seems reasonable

 

[Chronicle]

I 100% agree!

 

[Kenneth Haight]

 

[farmerboy]

The quicker the better. And while you're at it Albo, ban phones under 15 and in school hours entirely.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

The bill has passed: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/28/australia/australia-passes-social-media-law-intl-hnk/index.html

Get fucked Zuck. Need more countries to follow suit.

 

[Hookshot]

Good, the digital world is not the place for kids and any attempt at making a space for them is deliberately and constantly targeted by scum so just keep them away from it.

 

[The Skull]

Good. The amount of brainrot and attention seeking cunts out there is insane.

 

[FunkMiller]

'Straya leading the way, with the UK potentially set to follow.

I'd love to see the US follow suit, but I'm sure the 'MUH FREEDOMS!' brigade will stop it from ever happening.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Good for kids.

Terrible for meta data and overpowered governmnent.

Honestly 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards.

These IDs will be tracked until the day they die. Just wait till it gets hacked too.

No way I trust the government to implement this in a good way and not have a ton of back-door shit/data at their disposal.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

'Straya leading the way, with the UK potentially set to follow.

I'd love to see the US follow suit, but I'm sure the 'MUH FREEDOMS!' brigade will stop it from ever happening.

That rhetoric is already up and going here in AUS.

 

[Rat Rage]

Wonderful news!

 

[kruis]

How many of the folks saying this is "Wonderful news!" also understand that anonymity will become a thing of the past?

That porn site you used to visit? Now it's blocked unless you login with your government ID, leave your cc details, send them a photo of your passport or let them scan your face. You're mad as hell about your political leaders and you post a loud fuck you to Macron/Scholz/Von der Leyen/Trudeau/etc on X? Well, in the future the police will immediately know that YOU posted that tweet and they send a copper to your house because of your "anti-social, democracy threatening" posts. That site where you used to download "roms" for your emulator software? Now it's geo blocked because the site owners didn't implement the age verification system demanded by your government.

 

[FunkMiller]

How many of the folks saying this is "Wonderful news!" also understand that anonymity will become a thing of the past?

That porn site you used to visit? Now it's blocked unless you login with your government ID, leave your cc details, send them a photo of your passport or let them scan your face. You're mad as hell about your political leaders and you post a loud fuck you to Macron/Scholz/Von der Leyen/Trudeau/etc on X? Well, in the future the police will immediately know that YOU posted that tweet and they send a copper to your house because of your "anti-social, democracy threatening" posts. That site where you used to download "roms" for your emulator software? Now it's geo blocked because the site owners didn't implement the age verification system demanded by your government.

I mean... good? Social media is full of cunts who hide behind anonymity to spew bullshit. You'd probably clean pretty much every platform up overnight if people had to register for them properly. There'd be a lot less 'JK Rowling is a terf cunt who deserves to be hanged' if the fucking ballsacks knew their names were linked to their shit.

And no western government is sending people to your door for criticising a politician on social media That already goes on all the time, on accounts where people use their real names.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

There'd be a lot less 'JK Rowling is a terf cunt who deserves to be hanged' if the fucking ballsacks knew their names were linked to their shit.

at the same time, there'd be a lot less of people who hold her views being able to chime up and say so online, because most people are simply not wealthy/safe enough to say anything controversial like that without someone trying to contact their employer & destroy their livelihood

Anonymity is important. There should be some platforms that are not anonymous in nature (linkedin, facebook, etc) and others that are, because certain types of conversations simply can't happen when anyone with a vendetta is able to take your words and try to ruin you.

Simply put, there has never been a time when the dangers of anonymous users online have come even close to the dangers of the headhunters online who wills swat your house, send threats to your relatives, contact your employer, and more if you say simply something that enrages them. Anonymity is the only way to have some places where that won't happen

And no western government is sending people to your door for criticising a politician on social media That already goes on all the time, on accounts where people use their real names.

False -- the British police have repeatedly prosecuted for social media posts in the last several years, broadening the notion of "hate crime" to make it where they can knock on your door for things that are against current identity dogmas.

 

[FunkMiller]

at the same time, there'd be a lot less of people who hold her views being able to chime up and say so online, because most people are simply not wealthy/safe enough to say anything controversial like that without someone trying to contact their employer & destroy their livelihood

Anonymity is important. There should be some platforms that are not anonymous in nature (linkedin, facebook, etc) and others that are, because certain types of conversations simply can't happen when anyone with a vendetta is able to take your words and try to ruin you.

Simply put, there has never been a time when the dangers of anonymous users online have come even close to the dangers of the headhunters online who wills swat your house, send threats to your relatives, contact your employer, and more if you say simply something that enrages them. Anonymity is the only way to have some places where that won't happen


False -- the British police have repeatedly prosecuted for social media posts in the last several years, broadening the notion of "hate crime" to make it where they can knock on your door for things that are against current identity dogmas.

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.

As for swatting, contacting employers, and the bell end UK police force turning up to people's houses - well, that's already going on isn't it? Right now. Even with all that glorious 'anonymity'. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. So that's no real argument against forcing social media platforms to require better information from their users.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

As for swatting, contacting employers, and the bell end UK police force turning up to people's houses - well, that's already going on isn't it? Right now. Even with all that glorious 'anonymity'. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. So that's no real argument against forcing social media platforms to require better information from their users.

It's happening when people's identity is known, yes. It's generally not happening when you use pseudonyms and identity safety... which is the whole point.

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.

During COVID, it was considered punishable/bannable "disinformation" to even mention the likelihood of a man-made origin / lab leak, which is no longer a view outside the bounds of experts. It's not possible for clampdown on disinformation to avoid simply being a new vector of disinformation from a different power source, whether it be governmental or corporate.

 

[FunkMiller]

During COVID, it was considered punishable/bannable "disinformation" to even mention the likelihood of a man-made origin / lab leak, which is no longer a view outside the bounds of experts. It's not possible for clampdown on disinformation to avoid simply being a new vector of disinformation from a different power source, whether it be governmental or corporate.

So punishable that absolutely no one was punished for saying it during the pandemic, even the people who openly used their real names on social media when they talked about?

Sorry, but not seeing any of your arguments standing up on this, whereas the argument that people are allowed to spread disinformation behind the veil of anonymity is backed up by reams of evidence that you can easily see just by going on any social media platform and having a search.

I'm more than happy for platforms to be required to ask for more information from their users, because the good of this far outweighs any perceived bad.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

So punishable that absolutely no one was punished for saying it during the pandemic, even the people who openly used their real names on social media when they talked about?

Sorry, but not seeing any of your arguments standing up on this, whereas the argument that people are allowed to spread disinformation behind the veil of anonymity is backed up by reams of evidence that you can easily see just by going on any social media platform and having a search.

I'm more than happy for platforms to be required to ask for more information from their users, because the good of this far outweighs any perceived bad.

People were banned from Facebook for saying it, which they sort-of apologized for later

Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made

Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus

www.theguardian.com

and being banned from the primary social media platform of a large portion of the US (which is used to share family photos, to be part of local groups like your school PTA or kid's sports team, and so on -- literally is a hub for a lot of daily activity for many famlies) for discussing something that *later was actually revealed to not be clear disinformation* is highly dystopic

(But to be honest, we have to agree to disagree here because this thread is becoming political and therefore about to be killed)

 

[FunkMiller]

People were banned from Facebook for saying it, which they sort-of apologized for later

Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made

Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus

www.theguardian.com

and being banned from the primary social media platform of a large portion of the US (which is used to share family photos, to be part of local groups like your school PTA or kid's sports team, and so on -- literally is a hub for a lot of daily activity for many famlies) for discussing something that *later was actually revealed to not be clear disinformation* is highly dystopic

(But to be honest, we have to agree to disagree here because this thread is becoming political and therefore about to be killed)

Having a post deleted by Facebook is not being punished in my book. It's having a post deleted on Facebook. And there's nothing in that article to suggest any specific people had their accounts banned?

But fair point on the politics.

Hug and kisses and a slap on the ass.

 

[Brucey]

I mean... good? Social media is full of cunts who hide behind anonymity to spew bullshit. You'd probably clean pretty much every platform up overnight if people had to register for them properly. There'd be a lot less 'JK Rowling is a terf cunt who deserves to be hanged' if the fucking ballsacks knew their names were linked to their shit.

And no western government is sending people to your door for criticising a politician on social media That already goes on all the time, on accounts where people use their real names.

21 months in jail for NZ man who shared video stream of mass shooting....hip hip hooray for the nanny state?

New Zealand man jailed for 21 months for sharing Christchurch shooting video

Philip Arps had also made a modified version of the video that he intended to share as a meme.

www.bbc.com

As for the Ausralian ban, if one looks at France with similar ban for under 15s apparently almost half of the kids were using a vpn to get around it. But I guess the government can claim to be "saving the children".

"Last year, France introduced legislation to block social media access for children under 15 without parental consent, though research indicates almost half of users were able to avoid the ban using a VPN."

Australian social media ban on under-16s approved by parliament

The ban aims to reduce "harms" on children and will take at least a year to implement, the PM says.

www.bbc.com

 

[Brucey]

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.

As for swatting, contacting employers, and the bell end UK police force turning up to people's houses - well, that's already going on isn't it? Right now. Even with all that glorious 'anonymity'. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. So that's no real argument against forcing social media platforms to require better information from their users.

The Biden administration already tried the "ministry of truth"... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I do want bans for children on social media, to be clear, just not by the route of forcing government verified identity on all online networks, which is disastrous.

I'd rather see something like total shutdown on knowingly marketing to children in any form (even ads on youtube kids axed; all monetary incentives for advertising to children or using their viewing data made illegal), forcing all carriers to release special phones that are totally locked down for children and disallow any family phone plan etc from existing that doesn't use those, empowering teachers to immediately destroy (not just confiscate) all open-internet / unlocked smartphones found in the classroom for at least primary/middle school, etc. There are many ways to approach the problem without eliminating adult anonymity online.

Oh, and make "knowingly giving children unlocked access to the internet" an actual felony. I mean that if an adult even helps a minor jailbreak their phone or install a vpn, they are jailed. Exactly like giving them pornography, make the penalties totalizing.

 

[FunkMiller]

21 months in jail for NZ man who shared video stream of mass shooting....hip hip hooray for the nanny state?

I have zero problem with a racist piece of shit going to jail for glorifying and spreading footage of a mass murder. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, dude?

 

[Mistake]

So punishable that absolutely no one was punished for saying it during the pandemic, even the people who openly used their real names on social media when they talked about?

Sorry, but not seeing any of your arguments standing up on this, whereas the argument that people are allowed to spread disinformation behind the veil of anonymity is backed up by reams of evidence that you can easily see just by going on any social media platform and having a search.

I'm more than happy for platforms to be required to ask for more information from their users, because the good of this far outweighs any perceived bad.

Maybe they weren't punished legally, but many accounts were banned during covid for asking questions, on many different platforms. The only solution to your disinformation argument is...more information. Twitter's community notes was a very good step in the right direction. Also, anonymity works both ways you know. Sure I can be an asshole online and spread lies, but it's also nice not having some wackjob find my name and address to stab me at 3am. Another solution would be to have programs to teach critical thinking when using the internet, such as identifying clickbait, phishing, bad links, sources, dissecting articles, etc. Any proposed solutions coming from the government are guaranteed to be worse. We've seen it time and time again "think of the children," or "think of the troops."

Sometimes corporate solutions aren't good either. Look how John Stossel had to sue Facebook, basically calling him a liar. He got a lot of undeserved hate and his speech restricted.

I mean... good? Social media is full of cunts who hide behind anonymity to spew bullshit. You'd probably clean pretty much every platform up overnight if people had to register for them properly. There'd be a lot less 'JK Rowling is a terf cunt who deserves to be hanged' if the fucking ballsacks knew their names were linked to their shit.

And no western government is sending people to your door for criticising a politician on social media That already goes on all the time, on accounts where people use their real names.

A lot of those UK cases are mostly because of their ridiculous hate speech law. Online platforms are required to follow the law in the country they operate, so no one is really anonymous in the UK if they're not using a VPN or any protective measures. A quick warrant and the cops are at your door. In the US, not so much unless you actually threaten violence. But that's kind of a separate issue than using your personal info to register. I am actually more worried about people being blacklisted from the internet using this method. You're already seeing the negative effects of corporations sharing info, like car companies snitching on drivers to insurance. Imagine they share ban lists and the ramifications of that. Might as well throw due process out the window.

I have zero problem with a racist piece of shit going to jail for glorifying and spreading footage of a mass murder. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, dude?

How is this any different than 9/11 jokes? Or stuff with hitler? I don't think people being an ass is worth jail. I mean, someone can have a bad day and say some shit easily, now you're jailing people for being human. Not to mention it's a waste of time and resources for everyone involved. Even if he wasn't joking, what's to say someone can't go to jail for spreading it as a newsworthy event? I've lived behind the great firewall in china, I've seen the future behind these ideas and it's not fun. Your concerns are valid, but there's a smarter way to go about this. Also, sorry for the multiple quotes, not trying to single you out

 

[Z O N E]

If parents were being parents and parenting their kids and using parental controls in the first place, we wouldn't be here with countries implementing these bills.

Too many parents give their kids a phone and leave them be and then complain about how "this app let my child see this and that, we should be banning this and that".

 

[Cyberpunkd]

If parents were being parents and parenting their kids and using parental controls in the first place, we wouldn't be here with countries implementing these bills.

Too many parents give their kids a phone and leave them be and then complain about how "this app let my child see this and that, we should be banning this and that".

Interesting the absence of parents being parents (are you advocating for preventing some people to procreate?) it’s the states responsibility to protect the children, they are citizens as well.
Kids are not a property of their parents, I’m thinking some people here don’t get that point.

 

[FunkMiller]

How is this any different than 9/11 jokes? Or stuff with hitler? I don't think people being an ass is worth jail. I mean, someone can have a bad day and say some shit easily, now you're jailing people for being human. Not to mention it's a waste of time and resources for everyone involved. Even if he wasn't joking, what's to say someone can't go to jail for spreading it as a newsworthy event? I've lived behind the great firewall in china, I've seen the future behind these ideas and it's not fun. Your concerns are valid, but there's a smarter way to go about this. Also, sorry for the multiple quotes, not trying to single you out

How is going out of your way to spread footage of a man slaughtering innocent men, women and children, and asking that a kill count be superimposed over it, different from 9/11 jokes? Are you serious? He described the footage having crosshairs and a kill count as being 'awesome'.

 

[Mistake]

How is going out of your way to spread footage of a man slaughtering innocent men, women and children, and asking that a kill count be superimposed over it, different from 9/11 jokes? Are you serious? He described the footage having crosshairs and a kill count as being 'awesome'.

That's his opinion, still shouldn't be illegal. If you don't like it, the proper response is to call him a piece of shit, not put him in jail. Or ignore it. I think having to waste money on his idiocy is the bigger crime...

 

[Z O N E]

Interesting the absence of parents being parents (are you advocating for preventing some people to procreate?) it’s the states responsibility to protect the children, they are citizens as well.
Kids are not a property of their parents, I’m thinking some people here don’t get that point.

Not sure where you got the idea of me saying that some people shouldn't procreate. What I'm saying is, if you have a child, you should act like a parent and well.... parent them.

Yes, countries have a responsibility to protect children like any other citizen, but that doesn't mean parents can be lazy and just give their kids free reign on their phones or tablet and then complain later how their kid is addicted to social media or they saw this and that and tried to copy it.

It's a parents responsibility to monitor what their kids do on their devices. The moment that parents stop doing that but then complain about apps/websites, of course the government will step in because the parents didn't do their job in the first place.

Also, the kids may not be the parents "property", but they are legally responsble for them till they become an adult. So if your kid is constantly on IG, X or Snapchat, then do something as a parent instead of complaining and governments wouldn't be introducing these bills in the first place.

 

[Zathalus]

That's his opinion, still shouldn't be illegal. If you don't like it, the proper response is to call him a piece of shit, not put him in jail. Or ignore it. I think having to waste money on his idiocy is the bigger crime...

You don't think sharing videos online of people getting murdered should be illegal?

 

[Mistake]

You don't think sharing videos online of people getting murdered should be illegal?

Hell no. If someone came and killed me, I'd want my family to release the footage. You can't make a one size fits all law for something like that, especially if it's newsworthy. You're going to have assholes for as long as people live, you can't just make them illegal. That's preposterous. You honestly think our time and resources are better spent going after shitposters in an already overburdened legal system?

 

[Zathalus]

Hell no. If someone came and killed me, I'd want my family to release the footage. You can't make a one size fits all law for something like that, especially if it's newsworthy. You're going to have assholes for as long as people live, you can't just make them illegal. That's preposterous. You honestly think our time and resources are better spent going after shitposters in an already overburdened legal system?

I think it would probably be best if disturbing videos of mass shootings are not shared online. Plenty of other things are illegal to do and illegal to share online, it seems odd to me that murder is illegal but its perfectly legal to share online. Not sure why that distinction should exist then, a bit arbitrary.

 

[Mistake]

I think it would probably be best if disturbing videos of mass shootings are not shared online. Plenty of other things are illegal to do and illegal to share online, it seems odd to me that murder is illegal but its perfectly legal to share online. Not sure why that distinction should exist then, a bit arbitrary.

Because murder videos don't murder people. Turn off the electronics and go for a walk

 

[LegendOfKage]

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?

Spoiler

Credit for these examples comes from a video on the topic that's far too political to post here, but that I thought made a pretty good argument.

 

[Zathalus]

Because murder videos don't murder people. Turn off the electronics and go for a walk

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.

 

[Mistake]

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.

I didn't insult you, where did I do that? The rational thing is to turn off your stuff. If anything, you're being obtuse. Fact of the matter is, you make a lot of these things illegal, then it becomes next to impossible to expose different problems or do journalism. Also I'd rather prosecute people doing things far more serious

 

[Cyberpunkd]

It's a parents responsibility to monitor what their kids do on their devices. The moment that parents stop doing that but then complain about apps/websites, of course the government will step in because the parents didn't do their job in the first place.

This is exactly the case.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Because murder videos don't murder people. Turn off the electronics and go for a walk

Here is what you need to realize - imagine it’s a boxing match.

In one corner: a 13-year old.
In another corner: a team of behavioural psychology PhDs designing an algorithm for perfect engagement

Does it seem like a fair fight to you?

 

[Zathalus]

I didn't insult you, where did I do that? The rational thing is to turn off your stuff. If anything, you're being obtuse. Fact of the matter is, you make a lot of these things illegal, then it becomes next to impossible to expose different problems or do journalism. Also I'd rather prosecute people doing things far more serious

Your comment was similar to the “go outside and touch grass” insult that is often thrown about. If that was not meant as an insult then I retract my statement and apologise. As for illegal vs legal I agree that just making everything illegal runs the risk of governmental overreach, but I think mass murder videos of a recent terrorist attack should probably have some sort of fine or punishment levelled against it. Anything that goes that far over public decency and into obscenity should warrant it. A blanket law without any nuance would likely not work, but just letting people off with a slap on the wrist for something like that seems a bit tame.

 

[The Cockatrice]

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?

Spoiler

Credit for these examples comes from a video on the topic that's far too political to post here, but that I thought made a pretty good argument.

Its only for children, relax buddy. When theyre adults they can watch whatever they want.

 

[Mistake]

Your comment was similar to the “go outside and touch grass” insult that is often thrown about. If that was not meant as an insult then I retract my statement and apologise. As for illegal vs illegal I agree that just making everything illegal runs the risk of governmental overreach, but I think mass murder videos of a recent terrorist attack should probably have some sort of fine or punishment levelled against it. Anything that goes that far over public decency and into obscenity should warrant it. A blanket law without any nuance would likely not work, but just letting people off with a slap on the wrist for something like that seems a bit tame.

Nah, I meant it more like "don't like the content, change the channel." No problem. And I perfectly understand the sentiment. I mean, if someone made a mockery out of people I care for after something serious, I'd be ticked too. I just think making certain things criminal with speech is a slippery slope. If we're going that route and I made the laws, Dr Pimple Popper on youtube would be the first to go

 

[LegendOfKage]

Its only for children, relax buddy. When theyre adults they can watch whatever they want.

No, it's only for adults. Adults have to sign up for the age verification service with their ID, in order to prove that they are not children, which in turn keeps children from using the platform. But the end result is no real anonymity for adults, and everything is tied to your ID, and there's more government control and censorship, which is the entire reason for the example that I used.

 

[RaduN]

Because murder videos don't murder people. Turn off the electronics and go for a walk

Same as videos with mothetfucking monsters raping children. It's not the "video" that does the raping, right? I guess you are ok with those floating around as well.

 

[Mistake]

Same as videos with mothetfucking monsters raping children. It's not the "video" that does the raping, right? I guess you are ok with those floating around as well.

First, quit typing with your fists. Second, there is a strong argument to be had that such videos encourage the exploitation of children. So no, I'm not. Someone getting shanked in NY in broad daylight isn't the same thing at all. Of course people will send other people crazy stuff they see happening like that. Jim sends bob a message "hey look at this guy I saw get stabbed" and you want him in jail? So while you're sending police out for Jim, those monsters you talk about have more time to do what they want. Great idea.

Getting back on topic. Having everyone register for the internet is a bad idea, and I'm against it. If people are so worried about what kids see online, then they should be better parents and talk with their kids or use parental tools. We've had them since windows XP haven't we?

 

[The Cockatrice]

No, it's only for adults. Adults have to sign up for the age verification service with their ID, in order to prove that they are not children, which in turn keeps children from using the platform. But the end result is no real anonymity for adults, and everything is tied to your ID, and there's more government control and censorship, which is the entire reason for the example that I used.

No ones going to care if you watch hentai my guy. Your private information hasnt been private for years, its just that now you know it wont be.

 

[nikolino840]

Slowly, more and more countries are realizing the issues with social media and phones.
Thankfully, more and more countries are taking action to curb this problem.

Idk...i think my first times on Internet was with win98 with a 56k modem...so i was like 14/15 years old...whats wrong being in a virtual community and chats? And yes i was looking for porn too... whats wrong for a teen male looking for boobs?

 

[winjer]

Idk...i think my first times on Internet was with win98 with a 56k modem...so i was like 14/15 years old...whats wrong being in a virtual community and chats? And yes i was looking for porn too... whats wrong for a teen male looking for boobs?

The internet we grew on, is very, very different from modern social media.

And watching boobs when we are 14-15 is nothing special. It's just what boys do.
What social media does to kids is much worse.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

The internet we grew on, is very, very different from modern social media.

And watching boobs when we are 14-15 is nothing special. It's just what boys do.
What social media does to kids is much worse.

I dunno, there were a hell of a lot of unsavoury videos you could easily access back in the days of the wild west of the internet..

This social media though I agree with you, it's brain rot. And specifically made to be so.

The only real blessing is my kid just isn't interested in it at all. My other family and their children?

Different gravy. It's pretty apparent at what it does