this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
783 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
2871 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I know right. I used to be a kid who bypassed school firewalls and restrictions all the time. This is going to make no difference.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It will likely make a big difference. Freedoms being taken away day by day and we shrug it off.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"freedom" of kids and teenagers to rot their immature brains on "social media"?

freedom to be manipulated by Zuckerberg and his minions?

freedom to learn what a "real man" is from sexist assholes

freedom to develop bottomless insecurities before constructing a semblance of a "self" to get you through the grit of societies

at least they recognize the problem and … pass hopeless laws 🤷

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Freedom to raise your kids, and freedom to live your life as you choose, yes. Laws aren't needed for this. Content management should come from parents, and if websites are pushing agendas or misinformation you don't want your child on, you should be dictating what they are viewing.

You don't (lawfully) ban kids from parts of the library because you are worried they might read about things you don't like, you monitor which books they are reading and tell them not to read such, or discuss why/why not those resources do not agree with or match the principles you agree with.

This is the equivalent of banning kids talking to each other at school, on the bus or at the mall/park. If a platform is pushing harmful information then block that site, or bring a suit against the site for pushing harmful information.

Edit: If you don't want your kid on certain apps or sites you can start with things like this: https://families.google/familylink/ Don't force it on other people with laws, I believe parents should have the choice for themselves. Apps like that allow you to block social media sites, restrict their app usage and reset passwords if needed.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You don't (lawfully) ban kids from parts of the library because you are worried they might read about things you don't like, y…

libraries are carefully curated. Popular "social media" of today is a shit show.

This is the equivalent of banning kids talking to each other at school, on the bus or at the mall/park.

no, it's not "equivalent" to that at all. Are they banning messengers?

Kids in schools talk through game chat anyways. Are they banning games in Australia?

☞ "Exemptions will apply for health and education services including YouTube, Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline and Google Classroom."

this ban is not directed at kids, it's targeting "big tech".

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So instead of demanding big tech companies monitor their broadcasts, they are banning kids from accessing them, how is that not directed at kids? It is explicitly directed at kids.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

it's illegal to sell alcohol to kids, right? Would you consider that too as "banning kids from accessing them"?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes?

Marriam Webster: Ban - to prohibit especially by legal means

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

they could have just demanded alcoholic beverage companies to monitor their bottles, right?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They do. The alcohol dealers can only sell via licensed dealers and are punished for selling irresponsible products and to people irresponsibly. To drunk and you sell them more, you can get your licensed revoked, fined and possibly further penalties depending on where you are. If a you sell to a customer and they get drunk you are legally required to provide them with a safe means to get home most places. Whether that be providing a cab if necessary. Usually they will just call it for you, but often times that is them just dodging paying for it as they could be held liable for it. If a drunk driver leaves your establishment and kills someone, the establishment is also held at fault.

The people are told to drink responsibly.

(Not saying alcohol laws are perfect, but yes, they restrict irresponsible sales as they should restrict misinformation, and the company selling it is the one responsible)

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

By virtue of you actually knowing what a firewall is, and participating in the conversation, on this platform, you are ahead of 99 out of 100 people.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

True, but I was that one kid who showed all of my friends how to use a VPN to bypass all the restrictions as well, and then they taught their friends.