this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
922 points (98.2% liked)

You Should Know

44195 readers
137 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago (6 children)

I'm looking forward to the day when social media is heavily regulated and age-gated.

[–] RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 5 days ago (21 children)

Or parents can do their job. We have to suffer with age verification bullshit laws that's just there to have us all in a database.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 61 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

Not having it be regulated makes it a lot harder for parents to do their job, because the kids with responsible parents are getting peer-pressured by the kids with irresponsible parents.

Or put another way: you're not making parents do their jobs; you're making their jobs impossible by forcing them to choose between ruining their kid's mental health by letting her be exposed to social media, or ruin her mental health by forcing her to be ostracised for not using social media.

The only way to have a successful outcome is to force everyone else's kids not to use it, not just your own, and no amount of rugged individualist good parenting can accomplish that by itself!

That said, I am extremely sympathetic to the arguments against age verification laws too, which is why my preferred solution would be to fucking outlaw and destroy corporate social media entirely, for kids and adults alike!

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You are exactly right. We're all in this ugly, trapped situation, together, like it or not.

As a parent, do you remove the obviously ruinous toxins from the kiddo's environment, entirely? Seems like the only sensible choice.

But then again...for the kid, few things could feel worse. An entire childhood spent alienated from their peers? Permanently out of the loop, to where that becomes the personality trait noticed and remembered by others?

What a horrible bargain, I completely hate it.

"Well, a little hideous poison for you, routinely, I guess, dear. I wouldn't want you to end up weird, after all..."

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 5 points 5 days ago

Agreed. Just the peer pressure for having a smartphone at all is immense. Some kids have one below the age of 10. That is absolutely insane to me.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Oh won't someone think of the parents though?! How can they be expected to parent their own children, oh the humanity

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

best thing on that front is same fix for most of the working classes problems...

-more pay

-shift to 6hr/4d work week

-actually invest in education

most people are good, amd would probably love to spend more time with their family, but in the US especially they're overworked and underpaid, one accident away destitution

[–] Spaniard@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

It's not their childrens they belong to the State / Corporations / System

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

One lawmaker proposed a law that would make it illegal to allow your children to see "drag" so none of this has to deal with parents doing their jobs and everything to deal with giving Nazis control over what other people are allowed to see

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Durable societies are unfortunately bound to have such inconveniences for some in exchange for the betterment of many.

Tech companies have released the equivalent of digital opium so they and the government are accountable.

When we look back at the opioid epidemic of the 90s we don't blame the addicts or their families (well I suppose we did at one point, without the benefit of hindsight or a bigger picture view), we blame the Sacklers, pharmaceutical companies, doctors that took kickbacks etc.

I'd hate for us to make the same mistake just because the drug is delivered in a way we don't completely understand yet.

It's also not as simple as asking parents to simply be better at parenting, whatever that may mean. The drug is already out on the street, widely available, and ridiculously addictive. Keeping your child from it is not only depriving them of a dopamine hit that their brains are not developed enough to simply ignore (even most adults are addicted) and it is in many cases relegating them to social ostracization.

This is far beyond what one parent or group of parents can fix. It requires a societal level change which generally needs to come from the government, whether we like it or not.

I'd be happy to hear out possible solutions and, as a parent, share what is viable and what isn't. It would be nice to hear from other parents also.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 7 points 5 days ago (4 children)

This rhetoric is very dangerous. It's fueling censorship specifically targeting marginalized people

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (16 children)

Sure, legalize smoking for 12 year olds so parents can regulate it themselves. Imbecilic reasoning.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] prex@aussie.zone 6 points 5 days ago

It isn't (just) a technical problem for parents. Having the underage social media ban means that there isn't the peer pressure for kids to use - well there is, but its much lower

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

Most parents won't. People are people. Those that would want to have to ballance the risk of excluding their children from the collective.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 34 points 5 days ago (19 children)

Yeah, and that's how you get shitty age verification laws.

It's a double edged sword

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Age gated? You'd submit your driver's license or identity to these sites?

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It's already started, for porn. The kids don't have to prove their age, they don't have proper ID. So EVERYONE ELSE has to prove THEIR ages, and if you can't, you are assumed to be underage.

See how well that works for the Nazis? Now they get to identify EVERYBODY who is on the Internet with their legal IDs, and they will know exactly who posted that nasty meme of Trump.

But it's okay, because it protects the children.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

But it’s okay, because it protects the ~~children.~~ casino advertisements.

Australia's Social Media Ban is a Win for Gambling Companies

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly. I don't think it's a surprise this all aligns with companies like palantir collecting people's images into their database. I have a feeling on the backend these identities will all be used to track people online. Photos of faces and their identities is about to become a hot commodity.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Photos aren't going to help them track people online, that's to track people in real life. With a database of images, they can use facial recognition software to track people wherever they go. Right now, they only have legal access to mug shots, which is all they should have. But with a database of normal citizens, they can track ANYBODY, and they don't have the right to do that.

Imagine if your employer, or a stalker, or some HOA bitch, or overzealous law enforcement, or a lawyer, or an insurance company, etc. wants to hire them to see what you are up to?

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I don't see how what we're saying is different?

They're going to tie people to their online activities as well as offline. If anyone shows up to a protest, they'll be able to take photos and search for every account you are associated with. Think about the smear they could create with Alex if they had this fully operational now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] osanna@thebrainbin.org 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

already starting to happen. Australia, for example implemented a under 16 ban on social media.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

And evidence shows that it made mental health worse, because of course it did. But at least they aren't protesting the Gaza genocide so mission acomplished

[–] osanna@thebrainbin.org 5 points 5 days ago (4 children)

yup. sometimes under 16s have nowhere else to turn, so they turn to social media. if they don’t have that, what are they supposed to do?

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Okay but designer drug algorithms are not an option.

I imagine they will go to the same places you, or I, or the billions that came before did when we were raised prior to social media.

If my brother's only friend left is heroin. I am still not going to give him heroin.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Cutting addicts off from their drug of choice has short term affects of immediately deteriorating mental health. More at 11.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm deeply skeptical of anyone slinging around drug metaphors l. Can you considered that isolating marginalized people is bad for them? Or do you not care? Or do you like it better that way?

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You can be skeptical of the drug metaphors all day but we know it is extremely addictive and harmful. They know it is too. Right here in this article is proof of that.

No I think that social media as a whole is a blight on society, and you can whataboutism all day to make anything seem like a positive so it's worth keeping.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'm looking forward to the police kicking in my door and typing my keys for me. jfc.

load more comments (1 replies)