• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    A 30% reduction of kids being exposed to these harmful platforms is a good thing and I’m glad to see it.

    Also, all laws are imperfect, and expecting 100% efficacy is moronic.

    • Ohh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      As a parent who dont like id requirements but who also wants my children away from social media, this is my take:

      Social tech does not require a tech solution, but instead a social solution, because social media is a social problem. My children has restricted access, no accounts etc. But that helps little when all the other parents believe social media to be fine. A law clearly sets a social norm, which apparently 30 % of parents understand.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Right, but the politicians didn’t sell the law at 30% efficiency. They sold it at something like 95% efficiency. So they lied and they haven’t solved anything.

      Maybe they could have used all of that money to run campaigns to help convince parents to properly supervise their children. Maybe that would have done more than this 30% figure.

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Or maybe, instead of creating privacy-infringing laws or blaming parents, we actually dismantle the tech companies who created them and imprison their leaders. We all know corporate social media is cancer, that’s why we’re on Lemmy. So let’s fucking do something about the cancer instead targeting the victims or worse, exploiting the situation to expand the surveillance state.