• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Ontario school boards sue Meta, Tik Tok, Snapchat over harms to students

Rebecca Watson got responses like

Adam Reynolds:

Some More News (formerly of Cracked) just did a comedic news video covering this mostly through the lens of smartphones and more or less had the same conclusion. Social media addiction is a consequence of broken society with failure to address problems like climate change or gun violence as well as the lack of third places for kids to socialize.
I should post about third places some time.
It also doesn't help that a lot of the people who want to limit social media for kids are those who want to do things like stop LGBT or minority kids from forming online support communities.
That's how the Internet can be valuable for kids and teens.

Thomas Blankenhorn:

Theoretically, after this video, I should know better than to argue from gut instincts. But I can't help myself, so here I go:

This moral panic, "social media are addictive and and ruining our kids!", looks and feels very familiar to me. It sounds just like the moral panic infecting the parent generation of my youth in the 1970s and 80s: "COMPUTER GAMES are addictive and ruining our kids!"
I think that that's potentially better than couch-potato social media, because one has to participate instead of passively watch it.
 
I don't like this Luddite attitude toward the Internet. If it is so bad, then why not quit it? Just refuse to ever go online for anything. Not even to visit this site.
Personally I see it more like marijuana or alcohol or sex.

All of these things have times and places where they are alright, all of them have impacts on the growing human mind, and all of them require some manner of education and experience in a safe learning environment where people can be made pointedly aware of dangers and mistakes commonly made.

Of course people will always figure out new mistakes, and people will always find ways to make the old mistakes despite explicit warnings, but at some point that's their problem... Unless they make these mistakes so badly they "splash" onto the rest of us.

I would say that redactions of damaging false information, when they must be rendered ought be rendered with the same prominence and length of coverage as the original false statement. Say something on the Friday night news at 7:00 and 9:00 in a 15 minute segment? Get ready to waste a 15 minute segment NEXT Friday saying nothing but "this segment last Friday was false"... For 15 minutes, at 7:00 and 9:00, wasting your best time slots! Post an online story to reddit advertisements that you spend a million dollars advertising to a specific target audience? That's going to cost you a million dollars pushing the redaction. "Lies cost you double, plus the embarrassment".

That said, I think we would all be much better off if there was an expectation that people get a Postal email account that proves there is an adult behind the account (the email account is itself a form of ID as anonymous as a Google Account, especially given PGP layering), and that the adult is liable if they are letting their kid use their account before their kid has their own postal email account.

The technology to make this reasonably anonymous and secure is so easy to implement it's it even funny: "Registering an account requires a postal email address" and then use anonymizing send points and embed the sender via certificate signing instead of via origination points... It's actually unspoofable, since you can verify the sender, and acquire the validation certificate at registration time.

Just go to the post office when you are 16 and register an email address. Don't like your old address? Change it at the post office (and get free forwarding).

You can even have a variety of recover certificates so you can track what registrations attach which self-signed public key for their affiliate spam.

By in large you gain much, lose little, get "carding" about as secure and and even more anonymous as buying liquor at a bar for basic access, it's still quite easy, and for the idiots that can't handle at least that much, little to no effective access at all (there's just the tiniest barrier to entry in terms of competence).

Let people get their postal internet permit at 16 following "internet ed" where they go on a gutted version of the internet with AI bots set up to be predators or misinformers and trolls among many more bots that filter more accurate information from the open web, and educate based on how people inform and consume from this environment.

But who am I kidding, that'll never happen. There are too many Republican congresscritters fishing for underage victims on Reddit and X for that to ever happen.

*This is not a perfect solution. There are potential issues here, but issues that could, with reasonable work, be patched and fixed and made reasonable.
 
I don't like this Luddite attitude toward the Internet. If it is so bad, then why not quit it? Just refuse to ever go online for anything. Not even to visit this site.
That's an overreaction.

Their position is that Internet access is bad for minors, or can be bad for them if it is uncontrolled; And I think they have a good case for that position.

Your response here is like suggesting that anyone who proposes age limits on access to liquor, should become a teetotaler and never again drink alcohol, if they hate drinking so much.
 
Everyone knows, the internet is only bad for other people.
No, the Internet was bad FOR ME, but then so was a lack of education about the Internet and so was the lack of education about being gay, and so was the lack of education on the availability and effects of HRT.

I was personally substantively harmed by both a lack of education as much as an availability of resources.

I make my arguments on the basis, generally, of what I desperately wish I had growing up.

Both an education about how to successfully and safely use the internet with respect to the reliability of information and the reality of predators and how they operate would have been really nice. I might have avoided wasting my 20's, a whole decade of my life, if that was the case.
 
I was personally substantively harmed by both a lack of education as much as an availability of resources.
That’s funny - I was inestimably harmed by over-education and over-abundance of resources.
I make my arguments on the basis, generally, of what I desperately wish I had growing up.
Don’t we all?
an education about how to successfully and safely use the internet with respect to the reliability of information and the reality of predators and how they operate would have been really nice.

I hear ya. I’m still falling prey. The over-education I suffered didn’t touch on any of that.
 
In the psych ward I learned radical acceptance and gratitude are important, as is avoiding social comparisons, regardless of position.

It's called Brooke Glen. No vegetarian, Kosher, or Halal meals.
 
Back
Top Bottom