this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
119 points (91.6% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
2310 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those rules are harmful to teenagers
The rules include things like "do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids". That's not harmful to teenagers.
There might be other rules that are harmful, I haven't looked over the whole thing, but if Google has a problem with them how about explaining that instead of making false statements. This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.
It's a, "we'll use the kids to ban what we want" kinda law. It's vague enough that it doesn't just apply to social media, but can be applied to other areas as well. Additionally, the way, "harm towards minors" is defined gives states a lot of wiggle room on how they interpret it, which means they can (and will) attempt to use the law to ban things like LGBT resources, critical race theory, black lives matter, etc.
Wikipedia has a summary of the criticism.
No, it's rules like "homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned".
And adults couldn't possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids! Not that that has fuck all to do with what we're talking about here. We're talking about banning kids from being able to talk about their sexuality and gender in safe spaces
Not a blanket ban, just the likely result.
That would suck
It's just easier to get kids addicted. That's why they need special protection.
Honestly, not the worst outcome. Social media appears to do more harm than good, especially for kids.
How so? Genuinely asking.
The act in question is all but explicitly about banning lgbt content online, especially for kids. It will leave vulnerable kids with 0 ways to discuss their sexual orientation, gender, etc in a safe space away from their parents.
Assuming the entirety of the rest of the world beyond social media doesn't exist that is.
What world, when you don't have money or privacy of your own? If there's not a good queer alliance club at their school, they're done for.
I mean, I'm 41 years old. My best friend in high school was gay. He talked about it with other friends, and I'm in a pretty right wing province.
The internet is pretty far from the only place that you can discuss these things, and the kind of parents that aren't going to give you the privacy to discuss also are definitely not the kind to just leave the internet alone and let you go crazy on it.
You're talking about extremely psychotic (and completely ineffectual methods of) helicopter parenting.
Can't get em addicted as easily
Addicted to what? Being able to be able to discuss lgbt topics online where their parents won't beat them?
I mean that short cycle dopamine that all apps are pushing towards like its the new micro transaction.
LGBT safe spaces are amazing, but aren't representative of 100% of online content
EDIT: I didn't read the article don't come at me I'm stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can't expect anything of lawmakers
I wonder how these lawmakers get away with passing their homophobic laws
In my defense I'm not even american