this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
527 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

83600 readers
4162 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

If you set parental controls on your own teen's device, all you're doing is isolating them from their peers and making them the kid with the weird parent who doesn't let them post on tik tok.

Social media isn't what it was when we were growing up. It's designed to prey on them the same way slot machines create gambling addictions.

I'm no puritan but I do truly believe banning kids from social media and restricting teens at a legislative level would be a net benefit for society. Same as alcohol or drugs.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Prohibition didn't work for drugs either, so why would it work here? Why do we need to learn that lesson over and over again?

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Prohibition didn't work for drugs either

I didn't realize it was common for 14 year olds to drink alcohol and take heroin where you're from...

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Underage drinking is still more common than it should be, despite strict laws. The point is, it doesn't do any good to go after the consumer, regardless of age. in order to make a meaningful impact, legislation would have to destroy or significantly neuter social media companies altogether, globally. Anything else will be a disappointment.

The more effective way to reduce these harms is through social/cultural change, but that's easier said than done.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Underage drinking is still more common than it should be,

Sure, but it's significantly lower than legal drinking.

We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn't agree with so it didn't work.

I think you'd find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they're unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

It will be effective if the prohibition takes the form of these companies no longer existing, at least in their current form, OR if the majority turn against them, making them irrelevant. An age gate won't do anything, not on its own

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

lol are you serious

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Limiting total time spent on something is one of the parental control options. It isn't just blocking things 100%.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip -2 points 6 days ago

"I only let my child smoke crack 3 hours a day"