532
Australia’s teen social media ban is a flop. But there’s no joy in ‘I told you so’ (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
171 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 173 points 5 months ago (78 children)

It was never designed to protect children

Glad to see it's not even working. Let's keep fighting aginst these evil laws

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 78 child comments
    •
  • [–] 53 points 5 months ago (24 children)

    I mean, social media should be banned for everyone, not just teenagers. It's a great evil in the world today, and in a functional democracy that wasn't braindead, we should ban them outright for the mass harm and destruction they have caused.

    That being said, I fully understand that the motivations of countries for these kinds of bans have little to do with the harm of social media and are much more about surveillance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Which type of social media are we referring to here?

    Doesn’t Lemmy count as social media?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    There's a list of 10 or 12 social networks that are banned: YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, etc.

    Lemmy is still legal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Lemmy is legal because it’s too small for them to notice.

    And YouTube is an incredible resource for finding information. It’s not social media at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Its also an incredible resource for finding misinformation and disinformation unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    That's an issue with any form of information sharing, though. Your local library is full of false information as well, whether that's because it's outdated or because you live somewhere like the US where all school curriculum books have to be approved by a Texas based group per federal law.

    Lies spread faster than the truth, and the internet is great at spreading information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    It's so bonkers how most of the older generations agree that being on the internet cannot make you social, yet became the default method to communicate.

    Ban it for everyone? I mean, lemmy itself is a social network platform, if you want it to be. But I know what you mean: social media being the most used platforms, Google, Facebook, Tik-Tok, etc . . . And for that, yeah, I do agree with a full ban. We need a cultural reset, where we aren't being fed sensationalist bullshit and pure brainrot as entertainment via an algorithm trained on our insufficient capacity to regulate our attention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    In my view social media is probably not the problem, but the algorithms they use that are designed to be addictive and manipulative.

    I saw an article once arguing that the algorithms should be regulated in a similar way to medicine. Give some base ingredients they can use freely (e.g. sort by newest first), then require any others to run studies to prove they are not harmful.

    There would be an expert board that approves or declines the new algorithm in the same way medicines are approved today (the important bit being that they are experts, not politicians making the decision).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    This is the correct response. Social media, as a construct, is not evil and dos not do harm to anyone. The commodification and commercialisation of social media by capitalistic companies is what has caused the harm we see today.

    All of the harms and evils of social media can be boiled down to a single concept: the algorithm. Because algorithmic recommendation of content wants to encourage people to stay on a platform (for capitalistic reasons), and the most enticing and attention-grabbing content is hate-content, these companies have forced hate-inducing concepts down the throats of people in an endeavour to make more money and destroyed individuals and families/friends in the process.

    If we regulate the algorithms, we regulate the harm without disempowering anyone. We can, and we should, regulate algorithms on social media to turn it back into what it was 20-odd years ago - a measure to keep in touch with people you know or care about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Social media does cause harm. It tricks you into thinking you are socializing with those near you when you aren't. It tricks you into thinking people are talking in good faith, similar to in person communication. Finally, social media is a huge attack vector for scams and abuse due to the anonymity and ability to connect anywhere in the world.

    All of these things produce an overwhelmingly negative social experience from social media. That wouldn't be a problem if our defining trait wasn't how we socialize in groups. Socializing is as important as water and food for humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I wish I saw this kind of insightful point of view more often in the discourse over social media. It's stopped being about being social once algorithmic content curation became the norm to drive engagement and advertising money which is the real evil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    excellent take, I never thought of regulation on something digital like an algorithm (concerning social media) to be, I guess, possible when some government officials barely understand what an IP address is.

    But that's the thing, where's the motivation for this board of experts to exist coming from? There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

    That is why I just generalize and say that social media is the problem, because most people won't care to hear anything deeper. They are already addicted, and don't care for a cure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

    I think at one point you could make the same argument about medicines. The problem is that politicians are appointed with a popularity contest.

    I don't remember all the arguments of the article, but when you think about it, the harms of social media are medical. It's possible that we could expand the scope of the current medicine approval boards to include algorithms, with their job not being to understand the algorithm but to understand the research on mental health.

    I don't have all the answers, but I do think it's an idea worth exploring.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    I agree, social media is harmful for all, no matter the age. We shouldn't be destined to further segment and disfranchise individuals solely because they're "inferior", based on age or any other discriminatory factor - the thing is, who is the victim and who is the abuser in this case? Because the situation at hand seems like the victims are getting punished for the wrongdoings of the abuser.

    This is where we are at, the corporations flipped the script, and we as a society gulped it all down, tightening the handcuffs around the wrong hands.

    But besides the point, relating to the logic within your statement, who are you trying to ban here? Because you mention both "everyone" and "them" - which consequently makes it ambiguous, which introduces double meaning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (53 replies)