Seems more like an issue for parents to manage.
It's hard to control what teenagers do, but young children simply don't have the resources and opportunity to do things their parents don't permit them to do.
It's hard to control what teenagers do, but young children simply don't have the resources and opportunity to do things their parents don't permit them to do.
These days many kids have cell phones. For better or worse, that's what parents are doing. I don't know why, I'm not a parent and I don't know any children, but I know that as a young kid a cell phone allowed me to walk home alone or with another kid at an early age, so I can imagine justifications.
Anyway, I don't see why this should be on parents to manage, or how that would be effective.
There are a host of things parents have the responsibility of shielding their kids from. Trying to cancel out harms in the world is futile.
Note that cigarettes and alcohol were both implicitly and explicitly marketed towards children in the past until governments stepped in and there have been steps to attempt to crack down on fast food.
> Trying to cancel out harms in the world is futile.
You missed the word "all" there but I don't see how that statement is relevant when discussing one specific new harm which we can literally cancel out before it sees the light of day.
Our 11-year old travels to school on the train. Last week he set off to school on a day that (thanks to Covid19) he was supposed to be doing "home schooling" (there's a rather crazy timetable, he's got two [different!] days each week in school, three days at week home-schooling). So, we called him on his cell phone : "get off the train as soon as you can, we'll come and pick you up, you need to get back home ASAP"
In the good old days he'd have been blissfully unaware of his(our) mistake until arriving at school, at which point he'd have asked an adult for help, and would (probably) come home by himself.
I'm not convinced that kids carrying cellphones around is a net benefit, but here we are...
No, it seems like zuckerberg should justify why this needs to exist. There doesn't need to be an Instagram for children. What benefit to children get by having an Instagram. Why should this now be an issue for parents because zuck figured he could monetize children?
Even in a free society.
I'm happy to block/ban internet usage for my kids, can we presume you happy for those in power to legislate that no school can set kids any homework that requires the internet/youtube to complete?
For these, excepting PBS I think, monetary motivation is the same. More engagement equals more opportunity to show 'Baby Bottle Pop commercials'.
One major difference is gov't regulation over open airwaves (in America at least). There is no regulation in the app/product domain. Amazon Fire and Instagram are bound to whatever company moderation policies are in place at Amazon and FB (and App store moderation at Apple/Google).
Kids are resilient, but I imagine many parents don't like the thought of their kid missing out on context/social interaction because the lazy-parents kids let them do whatever they want.
(I mentioned what this was like for me growing up.)
Would encourage people to share some alternative paths to not being excluded socially. There's always a way around these platforms, but as a shy kid I never would've found them without a bit of guidance.
One of the kids in our 11-year-old's class lost it in the class WhatsApp group last week, hurled any and all terms of abuse you can think of. So our 11-year-old left the group as did many of his friends, and that got reported to the school.
Who thinks an 11 year old can understand that saying stuff online could potentially destroy your career several decades hence if someone made a screenshot?
I'd happily enforce a minimum age 18 for use of social media.
The kids are ultimately the ones who suffer so why not just prevent the problem at the root cause by disallowing Instagram for kids.
No, if something is harmful and addictive it should be regulated, parents or not.
Instagram should not be free to get away with addicting children to social media because some parents are not as attentive as they should be. Children should be legally protected from this predatory behaviour by tech ogilarchs looking to embed themselves into the behaviour of young children.
Why not a kid's gambling site? I mean, it seems like an issue for parents to manage. Children don't have the resources so it shouldn't be regulated, right?
It's predatory, and should be regulated, and heavily punished.
Free capitalism is sacred and parents are the only ones who should care about the wellbeing of their children. Society doesn't exist and no one is responsible for the wellbeing of anyone else beyond their own nuclear family.