this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
401 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

59629 readers
2617 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, don't do it. It's a bad idea. Phones are addicting and one day when we all realize this, we will have laws to prevent it.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because all of our current laws work so well at preventing access to addictive things. /s

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Last time I checked, minors are orders of magnitude less likely to be smokers or drinkers than adults. Seems like the current laws we have for age-restricting things do, in fact, work.

The rate of marijuana use went up in recreationally legal states, while the rate of marijuana use amongst minors went down, because dispensaries enforce minimum age laws that dealers don't.

The current laws allowing 13 year olds to sign a the TOS for a social media site need to be raised to match every other expectation of consent under contract law: 18 years old. For everyone saying that the parents are the ones that are supposed to be responsible, make them sign the TOS for their kids accounts, and then throw the book at them when they fail to protect their kids.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society. That is dystopian as all hell.

It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society.

I agree entirely, but do you have a response to what I said.

It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.

If you let a pedophile into your house, and let them rape your children, you shouldn't be allowed to have children. If it happens digitally on your watch because you didn't police your child's access to the Internet like it actually matters, you were a bad parent.

[–] glockenspiel@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

So the argument boils down to it being due to bad parents rather than evil technology, yes?

That's not the main arguments being used to ban these devices and advocate for more radical plans. Removing access to these doesn't make someone a good parent. Kids turn to other methods.

And to an earlier point in another comment: guess which cohort has explosive growth in smoking at the moment? Not people our age. Teens and young adults of legal age. Gen Z, in particular, is a huge market for that industry now. Cigars and pipes in particular. Vapes are counted separately but are wildly popular.

Banning the sale of highly regulated goods where the state is the official and only legal seller of said good in many states is one thing. We are talking about the internet here, though. And cell phones. And computers. And tablets. May as well put TVs and connected devices on the list, and definitely console platforms.