Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
By getting rid of shitty corporate social media that makes money by exploiting people.
This is like suggesting that the solution to protecting your kids from tigers roaming the street is to lock them in their rooms. Nah, just rid of the fucking tigers.
As long as corporate social media is closed source, it would be hard to know if a no-advertising policy is being fully adhered to. A good example of this is the class action lawsuit against Chrome’s incognito mode: for years, Chrome got away with collecting personal browsing data when people browsed in incognito mode despite insisting that they didn’t do that. Something similar might happen with social media. To get around that, there could be a legal requirement for social media to be open source. That might run into issues with intellectual property law though, and the lobbying against it would be so intense that I’m not sure if a law like that would ever pass without massive political will.
Thats true for social media, but social media isn't the only time you want to do age verification.
If you want to see porn or order (legal 😇) drugs for delivery.
And this is just times where the way to "protect kids" is age verification online. There are other times where you want to protect kids too, but doing so is invasive.
Sure, my answer is limited to social media because that is the question that is being asked here.
Ah, I suppose it is.
So I suppose I should direct my grievance at OP for being too narrowminded. There may not be a single solution for protecting the kids, but surely cast a wider net than this.
Also fwiw I think that the profit motive only makes an existing problem worse, it's not the cause and therefore removing it isn't the solution. It helps so we should still do it, but we have to be prepared that the job isn't done.
exactly. im just spitballing but there should be a kid only Neocities website or something that is anonymous with pre-selected prompts you can send to other kids, no DMs or personal pictures allowed. kids and teenagers on instagram/tiktok is like kids of the early 1900s smoking a pack a day. and of course active parenting limiting how much time they spend online. as a kid in the 2000s, our bare bones sites was enough to let us feel involved with the world and still use the internet safely.