this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
134 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2385 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The law would make Australia one of the first countries in the world to impose an age restriction on social media, but opponents say it could drive online activity underground.

Australia plans to set a minimum age limit for children to use social media citing concerns about mental and physical health, drawing a backlash from digital rights advocates who warn the measure could drive dangerous online activity underground.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his center-left government would run an age verification trial before introducing age minimum laws for social media this year.

Albanese did not specify an age but said it would most likely be between 14 and 16.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Blocking children from online communities is blocking them from seeing external views outside of the bubbles their parents indoctrinate them into, it's blocking them from seeing information to realise if they're in an abusive situation and seeking help, it's marginalising LGBT+ youth if, through no fault of their own, they happen to be born to ultra religious or LGBT+ phobic parents.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They'll also be exposed to other external views that are a bit more unsavory. For every kid that watches a video by an LGBT creator and learns being gay is okay, there's another kid who watches some alpha douche Andrew Tate type that teach them women are objects. The internet is the definition of a mixed bag and should not be used to educate children

Which is why we shouldn't be relying on social media for this stuff anyway, this should be done by schools. If a child is in an oppressive abusive house they probably won't get social media anyway, but they will more likely have to go to school. Also teachers and counselors are professionals who know how to educate children and handle abusive situations way better then some stranger online.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

I would argue the kids are more exposed to douches like tate because all algorithms fucking push that controversial shit for the views for every pro lgbt post pushed there's gonna be 10 tates pushed.

I'm not arguing for or against what stralia is doing but something needs to be done about social media pushing all that bad shit.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

School isn't able to detect all abuse and it is not uncommon for abusers to homeschool to avoid detection.

load more comments (5 replies)