Rivalarrival

I would love to hear the distinction. Please enlighten me.

In the context, yes: you're teaching kids that someone else will be protecting them from harm, so long as they obey arbitrary rules and restrictions. That's the exact mindset someone needs to have to be susceptible to a cult, and the exact opposite of the mindset needed for responsible interaction with the general public, either in person, or over a network.

Better they be taught early that nobody can offer them complete protection against all harm, and show them how to protect themselves.

Denying them access to because you can't control what they see, or how they will use it? That sounds like the behavior of a cult leader, not a parent.

And you think the best things for developing minds to exposing them to these groups because according to you "it is just marketing".

I think that by age 10, a kid should have a debit card and begin making some of their own purchasing decisions. I think they should be learning to budget their money early, when mistakes cost them tens of dollars instead of thousands.

And before that, they need to understand the very kinds of marketing that you are talking about. They need to know that advertisements are inherently deceptive, and to evaluate them critically. Your "Delores Umbridge" approach to teaching defense against the "Dark Arts" of marketing isn't going to cut it: they need direct, actual exposure.

. And you can find out if someone is more likely to join a cult through the gathered data.

Yeah. Data like "does this person respect arbitrary restrictions imposed by self-appointed authority figures?"

I never said to prevent them from using the internet, I said social media.

You say that like there is any sort of meaningful difference.

There have been priests that taught sex education using your logic.

The kids who "learn" from such priests are kids who haven't been exposed to proper sex ed. Generally, they've learned that sex is something that should be concealed. It's a secret that the kid isn't supposed to know about, so of course they don't tell anyone about it, because they know how to stay out of trouble.

Gatekeeping the Internet works the same way. If you're going to do that, you might as well download the sex offender registry and invite them all to the kid's birthday party.

What's happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.

"Use it against the user"... For what? You make it sound nefarious, but it is just marketing. You aren't being blackmailed. People are trying to sell you stuff. They've been doing that since forever.

Again, "marketing" is not the problem with social media. The harmful part of social media is the fucking people. Especially for kids, who are trying to figure out how to get along with everyone, but haven't yet learned that most people are assholes who should be ignored.

Tasker says you're wrong.

The kid who has done nothing more than install games from the play store is miles ahead of his phone-less peers.

You can try, but you'll be teaching to deaf ears until they have seen enough to understand what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, they have. Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door, yes, all of it has been done, and most of it predates even the printing press. This isn't social media; this is marketing, plain and simple. And marketing is the least damaging aspect of social media: they just want to exploit you. The people who aren't after your money are the real danger.

It's different from anything that's come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.

Kids have always been evil little shits who get their jollies demoralizing and torturing the weak. Social media is just a newer avenue for old sociopathy.

Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content

Again, nothing particularly novel. Marketing, news, propaganda.

On the public wifi, the operator of that wifi can see any data you pass through their network. They can likely see what sites you visit, but probably can't see what data you send to and from those sites, due to encryption. Unless they have an account with you, or you provide your information in clearext, they can link your data to your devices, but not to you directly, at least not from your use of the AP. They can potentially link your data to your image on their cameras, and thus your identity.

Your ISP has the same access to your data, but they also have a payment account linked to you, and they regularly cooperate with rights holders and law enforcement.

A VPN can do the same thing as an ISP: they know what sites you visit, but probably don't know what data you are sending and receiving, and they can link it to your payment account. However, they generally do not cooperate with rights holders, and may or may not cooperate with law enforcement in their jurisdiction. While you are using a VPN, your ISP knows you are using them, but doesn't know what you are sending back and forth, due to encryption.

If you want to remain as anonymous as possible, use a burner device with no accounts on public wifi.

If you want to avoid harassment by rights holders while you engage in piracy, a VPN is sufficient.

Even if they are only figuring out how to ignore clickbait, they are improving their skill sets.

Social media is "damaging", in the same way that all social activities are "damaging". The solution is not isolation, but early exposure. The last kid to get a phone is the one at greatest social disadvantage.