ByEclair89
Australia now appears to be ready to introduce a law banning the use of social media by children under 16. One reason for this is said to be the impairment of intellectual development caused by social media.
Operators who fail to take the necessary precautions will be subject to heavy fines, sometimes up to approximately 30 million euros.
Would you welcome such a ban worldwide?
(5 votes)
Loading...Does anyone know of any other social media apps besides Insta, TikTok, etc.?
hey good afternoon 🙂 My sister had some fun and deleted or deactivated my account about 20 minutes ago Now I can't get in anymore and I don't know what to do. I wrote to support but they haven't replied. I still know everything, like my passport and so on, but I can't get in…
Hello, my dears I found a nearly naked photo on my partner's phone that he once took for me. It was a screenshot, and there was something strange on the side. As you can see below. Does anyone know where this could have come from? Is he registered somewhere where the picture is rated or…
There are too many narcissistic people on Tiktok, so I deleted it!
Is it illegal to watch leaked Onlyfans content elsewhere? And if so, how likely would criminal prosecution be?
No, I find bans on such things highly counterproductive anyway.
I mean, here it is clearly better to raise an appropriate handling and a controlled consumption than to say a ban, which is going to be too often.
In the end, it will follow that the adult parents create the profile and still push it into their children. Who wants to control this?
It would be better to invest money and time in education. The questions clarify why it is important for children up to a certain age to divide the screen time, to pay attention to where the children are online, and with whom.
Then it doesn’t need a ban. Nobody learns how to deal with the media. And the real problem is not solved.
“In the end, it will be that the adult parents might create the profile” – but then they would have to deal with what the child consumes. Alcohol is only available from 16 and also parents give their children something earlier, but they restrict consumption.
“clarify why it is important for children up to a certain age to share the screen time” – but that also costs enormous money.
“No one learns how to deal with the media” – it’s not about media, it’s just social media. Some of them also spread news, but if we are honest, they are always somewhat filtered and rather unusable. Newspapers, Wikipedia and other news pages would still be accessible.
Social Media, is also a medium. It serves to exchange information of different types which have an informative or an entertainment value. Like the TV program. In addition, bringing a law on the way costs no less money.
Always with your Wikipedia. Books are published in which it is about keeping an eating disorder secret from his parents. I don’t think I need to describe what’s going on in Tv and other services.
I’m just talking about saying. It is bullshit to just overthrow this one subject and to make as if the ban is now the magic cure. as always when one regulates such complex topics with so simple “solutions”, something goes wrong. And bans very rarely lead to things the bans are also really not made anymore…As a ban only attracts not to be caught.
“On TV, there are also content that is not suitable for children under 14 or teenagers under 16. Where is the ban?”
1. We come from the topic, because it is not at all and 2. There are also prohibitions and restrictions on the broadcasting of such content, sale of this or in the cinema at the ticket sale.
“And the ban is about the dangers that come from other people”
Not at the general ban, but at this special ban, what we are talking about. Where did you get the risk of someone insulting you at Wikipedia? Of the media I mean, most of them have no chat and are not designed for self-representation, which can also be harmful.
“So for me it sounds like “snell, we do something”
Quick? How long have social media been there and nothing has been done? The consequences of each 5th is the victim of cyber bullying among young people. 15 percent of these had therefore already taken to alcohol, tablets or drugs and almost every fourth gemobbed* expressed suicide thoughts. The numbers also rise. You really don’t see a problem here, what to do?
On TV, there are also content that are not suitable for children under 14 or teenagers under 16. Where is the ban? Why do you get that without a ban? Bzw. Why is there a hint, supposedly enough?
And the ban is about the dangers that come from other people? Okay, so these dangers are not present in any other medium, never?
So for me it sounds like “nice, we do something” with you not “we need to get a problem in the long term”
“Social Media, is also a medium” – but yes a special medium in which it is mainly about social interaction. You don’t have that on Wikipedia. For the ban is about the dangers that come from other people and what they do with your psyche.
The entertainment value is not the same as with a TV program, as you can’t interact with anyone there, as with Facebook, for example.
Let’s say that the ban does not bring much if there is no possibility of control and aversion. By the way, I’m not a friend of the nanny state and I’m still staying with the parents. The fact is that all social networks have to do with the processing of personal data, which requires consent from the user. According to the General Data Protection Regulation, this consent may be granted to my understanding only after 16 years. So, basically, we already have such a age limit that can only be circumvented with parental consent. At this point, the state would have to ask whether it is allowed to intervene in the education in the private sector in such a way and how it would then be feasible (and financeable) in reality. I think this is extremely difficult.
lg up
“if there is no possibility of control and aversion.” – You can set it up.
“I’m not a friend of the nanny state and I’m still staying with the parents.” Well, that in Germany, at least the parents are overwhelmed in terms of scale, is no secret.
Then the question of the costs is raised.
Not all, but certainly a lot, clear. The extent to which the State/Bund/Land should intervene is still questionable to me.
“This is the question of the cost.”- many countries are already on the question of how to process office things online. There may be a possibility that you only have to change easily. I would have been in 1. Try now to link the ID with an e-mail (is often the case when you make authorities online) and to register on social media the ID is needed. When you sign up, there is an e-mail that parents know, if the ID is to be used by the child.
Yes, absolutely. In the same way, I would also be in favour of prohibiting the presentation of children on the Internet without a mass name for unmistakable. You just need to look at what children and young people send each other as children grow up from influencers and celebrities and how little children are still really child today (see the thousands of questions of minors here who want to know if they are thin enough, their penis is big enough or how they finally get someone to bed) to see how harmful permanent Internet access and uncontrolled use of social media are. Even for adults, this is absolutely not unproblematic (does not even recognize many more, which is really natural appearance, because online everyone sticks his face with filters) and in children it is very critical.
I don’t know. I meanwhile removed all SocMedia from my phone. In general, total fan of it
I can understand. I’ve still got Instagram, but I’ve been very radical. now there are no beauty influencers, models and co more in my timeline, which are all about their external speech, hoping into ever new clothes, or explaining how to make yourself as attractive as possible to the other sex, but exclusively to people who are interested in me because of what they are TUN and not because of how they are OUT.
It really took time to bend this distorted picture of “Normal” against just and I’m really glad to have made the exit in time. Otherwise, I would probably already have the xte beauty operation behind me, although I did not need it objectively.
I also find that constant consumption of filter models and co. convey a wrong picture. One perceives something as normal, which is only 5% of mankind, and that cannot be good in the long term.
I think it’s even worse: it takes people and looks to the model that doesn’t even exist. The Kardashians are a perfect example. how many millions of women and girls want to look like them and buy their products, undergo any brain-cracked operations (such as BBL, which is incredibly dangerous) and are still never satisfied because they don’t look like Kim and co on their pictures? And then you can see a picture of this celebrity without filter, digital touch up and perfect pose / lighting and is shocked by how destroyed people look there. So not even the ones you see as a model look as it is displayed online.
Like there’s been this since yesterday. These were asked “Dr. Sommer” in the Bravo long before there was the Internet. This simply has to do with the fact that such questions become simply relevant at a certain time in development. And there it doesn’t matter whether with media or without, that’s what puberty does
The question is not, OB children deal with such issues, but how they do that. And this is definitely different today than it was 15 years ago. It is a difference whether one can think about it from public curiosity or about nothing else due to the omnipresent pressure from outside.
I do not say that children are not allowed to deal with sexuality or their appearance, but beyond a healthy mass, it goes far beyond.
Too bad I thought you were so slow. Well, then I don’t think we’ll get here anymore you just don’t understand it and see the complex facts too easy
Of course, they do that because of the ban. a seller can’t care who he sells. the only reason why there is a demand for an identity card, because there are also some controls and there is no need to respect the laws.
These people do not do that because of the ban, so slowly you understand my point
of course, bans are bypassed. but do you want to legalize murder because there are people or people who are beyond the law?
For even though some do not adhere to it and, for example, despite a ban on a 16-year-old hard alcohol, there are still a lot more people who stick to it and do not do it. By the way, do you know how most children and teenagers come into contact with pornographic material for the first time? about WhatsApp group chats or Instagram messages. one more reason, since more regulation is needed to use.
Yes, just like the ban on alcohol delivery to young people, it protects them from alcohol. Or like the prohibition of pornographic content, for children and adolescents prevents them from reaching. Or the ban that prevents young people from celebrating u18 in the clubs. Or just like the prohibition this only causes people to watch over 18 games and movies for this age…Ach ne, wait, these bans are all being bypassed regularly. But right, this ban is “all different”
in this case, he would guarantee that what he should: protect children from the harmful effects of social media. What else should happen?
Apart from that, you can also gradually unwind when you realize that it works without. Pfand would be an example. Manufacturers are obliged to raise deposit. unless the population receives waste separation and recycling even without deposit.
This sentence summarizes all that I see as a problem. Blind actionism has never done what it should be. And this law is for me schoolbook actionism
it’s not about punishing anyone. it is about protecting children and young people. before themselves, before lack of control by their parents and above all the extremely harmful effects of uncontrolled internet use. I mean eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorders, grooming or also depression. In addition, it is not about completely prohibiting the Internet for children and young people. the social media, which, in my opinion, did not really deserve the term “social”. Because they like to be used by paediatrics to get in touch with children. because unrealistic ideals are presented as normal and thus permanently damage the self- and foreign image. Meanwhile, this goes so far that many cannot even recognize when a woman is cut. Nowhere is judged as shameless about others as on the Internet and nowhere else are children more protectionless. DAS is the point that gives me incredible abdominal pain. And there it does not help if parents inform the children about the dangers on the Internet. just padocriminal have incredibly perfide and effective methods to manipulate children.
I do not want to say that all social media are generally accessible from 16 onwards. but there’s something to do. For example, look at the age limit of certain platforms. Instagram is for example only from 14. However, younger people also use the app because there is simply no control over how old the users are and because so many are not aware of the dangers that social media are experiencing.
That’s right, of course. But I do not see this as a problem of the whole mass. Of course, there are children and teenagers who have too much access, unrestricted access, and develop physical and psychological problems that will also damage society. But there are still those where this is going differently, where you look and take care of yourself. Why do you want to take them?
Different. Many young people are obese, because they do not get a healthy eating and movement behavior pre-lived. Now then also forbid for normal-weight chocolate bars? And would this ban teach the first healthy diet?
Yes, once you’re stuck in some algorithm bubble, it’s hard to get out. I would miss all the videos from Cosplayern, so I deleted the first account I had and adjusted my Cosplay account, which was fortunately not so expensive. 😀 I hope you find some other source of inspiration for cooking ^^
Absolutely. ideally, they are still very proud and claim that their operated, highly trained and at best still retouched figure is due only to this (usually to their own) powder.
I’ve erased it because I’ve always been suggested to waste women and AfD garbage. Probably because sometimes I couldn’t hold on to me and had to comment. I didn’t get it out either. Then too busy and burdened me, so I deleted it. Since then I have been much more relaxed. Although I really miss all the cookware. 😉
Or even those fitness people with their whole powders I find terrible.
I can win this idea a bit, because it doesn’t hurt anyone to discover life in an analogue way and in relation to the things that really exist, before you can only network digitally and end up with robots.
Yeah, I think that’s a good thing. Is ́ perhaps a shame that the futures have to suffer from it, but with many it is necessary because the parents do not care about it.
I think I’m good. But I would only allow socie media from 14 onwards. 16 is late. And I have a few more questions like:
Does YouTube count?
How do they want to codify?
Will there be alternative apps that are more secure?
Better I would find that you are doing more education stat to ask for everything.
LG
Good question with Youtube, I somehow don’t see it in the category, especially if I only watch music and that was. Many seem to really use this as a way to spread hatred when it comes to influencers. There are death threats and insults expressed in the comments as if it were part of the good sound… but here you could be sure that just the comic function does not work anymore, as is the case with videos for children.
I would have thought of a system that is coupled to your ID and then records the surfing behavior and length. Thus, despite theft of the child’s identity, parents would get what it does and should they allow it for themselves, the control function remains.
What do you mean with the alternative apps?
Enlightenment has been operating for years, but the cyber bullying rate and violence in the network continues to increase.
Alternative apps for teenagers.
As far as renunciation is concerned, I can tell from Slovenia and a we had not yet explained about fishing mails.
LG
I don’t need the extra apps because you also want the child to have less screen time in the young years. Pages of newspapers for news and Wikipedia would still be available.
No, but a more sensible approach and more awareness & knowledge about the risks for younger users.
Would you have an idea what this might look like? Where should this take place?
The school and the family would certainly be very helpful.
This is certainly a good idea:-) To distinguish what fake or real is important!
Yeah, that’s right. I could also introduce myself to some kind of internet license that you get after a test. He is then merely a proof for the parents that the children have received basic knowledge.
Yeah, I’d like to say that.
If I see what content I am confronted, I do not want to know how this affects the development of children.
I think 14 years as a border should be enough.
Absolutely.
No!
Would you have a reason?
Because it is disproportionate
Yes and alcohol is also something else although I believe in alcohol only from 18
How disproportionate? Alcohol is released from 16 years. You want to protect children from the consequences and social media can cause similar consequences.