The c*** they watch is incredible. I think it causes early onset dementia.
78
rickroll1000019 hr ago
+13
I honestly think it simulates it, my mum can't even process movies anymore
13
sambare12 hr ago
+7
How about we just ban social media altogether? Who needs that shit anyway?
7
marr756 hr ago
+1
Right? Please ban the rest of us now.
1
TheMermanly22 hr ago
-26
Why? That makes 0 sense
-26
Herschel_Wallace1 day ago
+66
I have a better idea: if social media platforms refuse to change their algorithms to something not predatory, they get outright banned.
66
[deleted]1 day ago
-18
[deleted]
-18
ToolTimeT23 hr ago
+10
"algorithim"
I am guessing you might not be entirely educated in *algorithms* on social media.
10
SaberHaven1 day ago
+202
Correction: Norway is planning to dox its private citizens online
202
Charming-Corpse21 hr ago
+15
I mean u right but god would I love if there was an ethical way to do this
15
IronGin22 hr ago
+30
Thank you for pointing it out.
Done for the children of course. Ffs a step closer to daily rectal exam because one person might put tnt in their butt and blow up a kindergarten according to our politicians...
30
iwishihadnobones21 hr ago
+10
I swear there are so many shills out here leaving comments that are against any kind of regulation at all, always with the same slippery slope argument that it inevitably leads to some absolutely insane place.
Its such a bullshit argument. Listnook is becoming propaganda central
10
SaberHaven16 hr ago
+9
It's not propaganda. If you want to verify people's age, everyone needs to be ID'd. It's not a slippery slope, it's a direct invasion of citizen's right to privacy
9
CouchPoturtle11 hr ago
+2
It isn’t though. Social media isn’t a basic need, it’s a choice to use it. If you don’t want to verify your age and keep using it, nobody is forcing you.
2
iwishihadnobones16 hr ago
-11
So how would you go about protecting children from social media?
-11
yabadabado014 hr ago
+5
It’s the parents job to parent. Not the gov.
5
SaberHaven13 hr ago
+1
This
1
iwishihadnobones14 hr ago
+3
So no protection then? I'm all for parents parenting, but if your kid has a phone, you can't police what they do with it on a 24/7 basis.
Saying the parents should do it without any help is unreasonable.
3
SaberHaven13 hr ago
+3
What the heck does a kid need internet on their phone for? We've just as a civilization basically developed psychic powers for the first time, and we think it's a great idea to give it to minors. And somehow we expect it not to look like the backstory of Professor X.
Texting and calling is plenty. Or you know, just plan ahead.
3
iwishihadnobones13 hr ago
+1
I completely agree. But this is the world we live in. That's why countries are banning social media for minors.
1
SaberHaven13 hr ago
+1
So every parental responsibility which some parents do a shoddy job of should be delegated to government for all parents?
1
drae-7 hr ago
+1
There's about a billion softwares for this.
1
MinorKeyEnjoyer10 hr ago
+1
why shouldn’t we sell cigarettes to 10 year olds? it’s the parents job to parent!
1
10yearsnoaccount13 hr ago
+1
Regulate the media companies!
How is this not obvious?
The fact is that Meta is lobbying FOR age verification - they get more personal data, and avoid regulation at the same time.
1
iwishihadnobones13 hr ago
+2
Ok bud, I'm listening! Regulate meta or whoever it may be. How so? What kind of regulation are you suggesting?
2
Biengineerd15 hr ago
+4
Naw man, this combined with the rise of programs like Palantir are pure dystopian. Every erosion of privacy or freedom is done in the name of safety.
4
iwishihadnobones14 hr ago
+2
I think you're conflating two separate issues.
2
CouchPoturtle11 hr ago
+1
Most people in real life would support some kind of regulation. Listnook isn’t real life and it’s full of childless neckbeards who think they live some kind of anonymous online life even though they’re signed up to every tech and subscription service available and hand over their data willy nilly.
Nobody has yet given a proper argument against it outside of *ooh privacy* and *ooh authoritarian, slippery slope*.
1
EmbarrassedHelp1 day ago
+92
There is no such thing as private or anonymous age verification. I really hope Norway isn't stupid enough l to try and enforce this ban with such anti-privacy authoritarian bullshit.
92
English_Cat1 day ago
+38
Norway uses a system called BankID which is essentially a state sponsered third party authentication app. It's in wide use and Norwegians use it pretty blindly to sign into everything already, social media wouldn't be such a large leap.
38
ToolTimeT23 hr ago
+28
People who blindly sign up for social media conglomerates who are gathering their personal information and selling it for profit won't stand for this corrupt attempt to violate their privacy!
28
ExReey22 hr ago
+12
Haha this. And there are always people who think banning them is crossing the privacy line, while they are already so far behind the line, the line is a dot to them.
12
English_Cat22 hr ago
+9
The point is that the majority of the Norwegian population would barely register the change. It's interwoven in the culture that to sign into services, you use BankID.
9
Seanspeed21 hr ago
+3
An all-serving, national online ID like that is honestly not the worst thing. You can much better control the amount and type of private information anybody can get from it.
3
English_Cat9 hr ago
+2
Any hack would reveal social security numbers and names, alongside address and telephone number.
It's kinda useless because realistically you need their private password and their 2ah device, but also not great as you're giving away a lot of the steps to be able to make a convincing fraud.
2
-CerN-22 hr ago
What people seem to fail at getting is the issue of what will qualify as a social media. Online games with chat functionality? How many indy/small business products will never be accessible to us, because a small dev team doesn't have the resources to implement a small country's verification check?
It also adds another barrier to competing services. We're regulating ourselves into being slaves of large monopolies.
0
andrezinho2511 hr ago
+2
That’s a really far fetched argument.
2
CouchPoturtle1 day ago
+18
There’s no such thing as privacy or anonymity online anyway. Anyone who thinks their data is private or that they’re living “off-grid” because they haven’t had to verify their age is deluded.
18
PeaOk56971 day ago
+24
Most people here are dangerously naive. People think this is about protecting children. It will, but that's not their motive.
24
ToolTimeT23 hr ago
+10
What is their motive?
China hands out tiktok to american kids, but bans it for their own children... whats their motive you think?
10
dromtrund1 day ago
+7
It's definitely possible to implement a certificate issuing service that is anonymous, and where the government won't know what you'll use it for. That's probably not what they're trying to do though.
7
BigPlunk21 hr ago
+4
We know 100% that social media and digital addiction are especially harmful for developing minds. We cannot throw up our hands and say that we can't address the problem through government policies because of free speech and privacy. At the same time, we can't allow big tech to have more of our data or more of our personal lives in their grasp. Authoritarianism is evil and should not be supported either.
But leaving this up to parents to solve is already a losing battle. Most adults in our world are struggling with some form of digital addiction because these platforms and devices have been psychologically engineered to be addictive by engaging our negative inherent traits. Tech savvy children know how to overcome monitoring software. Using home routers to manage phones only works when kids are home.
Coca-Cola and other big companies have made it society's problem to deal with the massive waste they all create, instead of being forced to create more sustainable packaging or develop methodologies to sustainably deal with it. Big tech and authoritarians would have every one of us believing there is no technical solution to the problem or that only the most invasive policies and processes can fix the situation. Bullshit.
Give big tech a list of key criteria they need to meet in order to be approved for use in said country:
1. Full respect to privacy, no risks of additional data breach exposure.
2. Those under 16 are unable to use the platform. Any breaches carry big fines for each instance. Repeat offenders will have their platforms banned.
We have to stop acting like this nefariously-engineered platforms are somehow necessary for our society to function, when they're clearly responsible for much of its current dysfunction. We need to put the onus on big tech to fix the f****** messes they've engineered at our great expense and harm. We have to give them financial motivation to do so.
AI needs to be handled similarly, considering the serious damage we already see happening.
For those old enough to remember, cigarette smoking was once viewed as a social norm that could not have been removed without inflicting societal damage. People knew it wasn't healthy and buried their head in the sand about how bad it really was. But as lawsuits against big tobacco were won and government/health messaging around the risks improved and became more prolific, the public perspective changed. Lobbying is a powerful drug and we continue to see toxic messaging that it's harmful to put policies in place that put guardrails on big businesses.
We can and should demand better policies that keep our countries, democracies, world safe and healthy without a colonoscopy to our privacy and data.
4
ToolTimeT23 hr ago
-1
So should we stop IDing for alcohol, strip clubs, and cigs and guns?
I mean my privacy!!!
-1
Left-Night-11251 day ago
+60
Imagin parenting to be a thing.
But than again this isnt for the kids, this is controll over adults.
60
ShoulderPast24331 day ago
-16
What else should be left to parents decision?
Alcohol? Cigarettes? P***?
-16
WorstCPANA1 day ago
+23
What their kids eat? What media they consume? If they're involved with sports or other activities?
We can't let this happen, we must make every decision for the parents!
23
eyelessfade1 day ago
+9
It already is. None of those is illegal to give to your children.
9
Asger12311 day ago
+5
You can make it illegal to give your kids access to social media without requiring ID.
Of course parents can do it anyways, but then its illegal
5
Rapscallious11 day ago
-14
Imagine thinking parents can easily supersede companies spending billions
-14
munchi3331 day ago
+25
Are you serious? Parents could take the damn phone away from their kids. There’s also tons of child lock technologies they can use.
This is another classic example of shit parents taking zero responsibility for their shit parenting, instead blaming “society” because they’re lazy.
25
NaarNoordenMan1 day ago
+7
I'm sorry to say, you're never going to have a discussion with the terminally online on this topic. They can't seem to comprehend that outside exists, paper books are unhackable, and connectivity is optional. Also consider that those who downplay parental responsibility also tend to have an aggressive anti-natalist approach to life.
7
UKAOKyay1 day ago
-1
No it's more equivalent to cigarette companies targeting children and when they refuse to stop, the government has to step in and restrict access.
-1
Rapscallious11 day ago
-9
Phone has many purposes asshat, quit botting for the bad guys
-9
munchi3331 day ago
+12
Put some child protections on it then like I said. Or get them a “dumb” phone. Not that hard.
12
Left-Night-11251 day ago
+2
The issue is that most parents seem to want to be friends with their kids and not parents.
Also they rather have their kid be silent, so they put a device in the kids hands as soon as it begins to make sound.
Parents dont seem to do alot of parenting in the west nowadays, and now they use that as a excuse to limit those very same parents under the pretence " its for the kids".
2
Rapscallious11 day ago
-1
What’s your plan for the computer? When they are at their friends house? You think there are no ways around those things? Astroturf much?
-1
nekromantique21 hr ago
+1
You dont think there are child protection aspects with computers?
1
Rapscallious119 hr ago
+1
I just think they are even less effective than on phones.
1
Secret-Ad-21451 day ago
-6
> Imagin parenting to be a thing.
Are these parents in the room with us? Are they currently parenting?
-6
corwe1 day ago
+31
I think this sucks. This essentially makes half of the internet have to ID everyone and deprives younger people of basic freedom online from sharing their art to asking how to screw a light bulb in on listnook
31
FungibleFriday1 day ago
+13
Social media is highly addictive, and over use has significant long term negative outcomes.
How do we control for that in children? Social media, reels, the endless scroll is as highly addictive as certain drugs.
13
corwe1 day ago
+11
Parents or other trusted adults can control a lot of aspects of their children’s lives, including whether they have phones and social media accounts.
I agree, there are plenty of harmful aspects to social media for people of all ages. Perhaps it would be a good idea to target their ability to advertise or gather data about users instead of going the opposite: empowering them to gather more data about users
11
FungibleFriday1 day ago
+9
I agree I don't want social media, Ai, or any tech companies gathering more data from us.
I also don't think we should let these companies abuse, or control our kids dopamine without oversight.
Being a parent is hard, that's why the birthrate in the u.s. is 1.5-1.6. People are choosing not to have children because it is hard, financially, socially, emotionally. Its not as easy as a parent telling their children "in this household we don't allow instagram, tiktok, youtube shorts or reels". That comes with a major social cost to the child if "all their friends are on the app".
Parents and experts have seen and acknowledged a problem, they're now asking for help. Stop letting these billion dollar social media companies capture the dopamine and endless attention of our children.
10% - 20% of adults show signs of socially media addiction. Not over use not long hours, actual addiction. We can't just allow them to have free reign over minds that are not fully developed yet.
I think social media and specifically the endless scroll, reels and shorts are poison and the mental health impacts are so bad for all of us.
9
corwe1 day ago
+6
I’m not arguing that parenting is hard or that people develop social media addiction or even that there should be solutions at levels greater than than that of the individual.
I just don’t think “oblige social media companies to monitor a particular piece of personal data and sift users based on that” is a good solution and would prefer something like “there is a limit on how or what advertisement is allowed to be served or data that content can be based on” or something around algo design. That looks both more ethical and more effective to me. ymmv
6
FungibleFriday1 day ago
Sure. Im on board with that. But no one (government bodies/agencies/social media companies) is proposing those types of solutions.
If it were up to me, I'd immediately ban the endless scroll, the endless reel after reel.
0
Seanspeed21 hr ago
+2
> empowering them to gather more data about users
What new data would they be getting here?
2
vriska11 day ago
+5
That why we needs to fight this bill! How likely is it to pass?
5
reefsofmist1 day ago
+1
If you don't want to give them your ID just don't go on social media?
Seems like a win win
1
Eatpineapplerightnow1 day ago
+8
Regulate the c*** out of the SOME companies instead of this! Force them to release their algos first of all.
8
ExReey22 hr ago
+1
*remove
1
exciting_one20051 day ago
+11
Y is no one trying a layered approach.Only Boring wikipedia kinda websites allowed till age 10. YouTube allowed from age 10 and social media apps allowed from 16
11
Kewkky1 day ago
+41
How would you even implement this in a layered approach that can be controlled? IMO smartphones should just be banned for children under 16, let them use dumbphones for any kind of calling, texting and GPS needs.
41
exciting_one20051 day ago
+5
I understand implementation is difficult but I don't feel cutting kids out of all the knowledge on the internet is ideal. I myself taught myself guitar, 3d modelling, stop motion all for free using internet. Such useless of internet should be encouraged
5
qtx1 day ago
+4
> I understand implementation is difficult
You said the thing yet you completely glossed over it. It's impossible to do so. Only way to achieve what you want is to restrict everyone else's freedom as well.
This is why tech illiterate people shouldn't make decisions based on emotions.
4
Kewkky1 day ago
I didn't say cut them out of the internet. Smart TVs still exist, gaming consoles still exist, computers still exist, etc. It's the broader uncontrolled internet access through phones that would be removed, as TV, computer and gaming time can be controlled by parents a lot more easily. Imagine how much better society will be if kids weren't such easy targets for online predators, or weren't able to use their phones once they went to bed (ruining their sleep cycle), or were able to be disconnected from the 24/7 news cycle and angering social media posts, or companies and influencers would stop creating content to manipulate the opinions of children in school, etc. Parental controls should be able to have use and not just be a novelty.
0
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
+7
>Imagine how much better society will be if kids weren't such easy targets for online predators,
Children have litterally never been safer at any point in human history
They used to go outside and meet creeps in person rather than being insulated from them by thousands of km of fibre cable and glass screens.
7
Kewkky1 day ago
If kids want to use the internet, they can go back home and use their home computer. Smartphones are addictive and detrimental to children. They can survive just fine with dumbphones. And the encounters with creeps outside in person is FAR rarer than the nonstop assault of creeps online on social media. Just because there's no actual physical encounter doesn't mean that kids are 100% safe. This kind of internet interaction created a whole new level of children-related criminal activity that IMO is overall worse.
0
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
-4
>that IMO is overall worse.
because it's soooo much worse when creeps say icky stuff over chat than with they *actually have sex with them.*
-4
Kewkky1 day ago
People send children images of genitals and p*** videos. They even convince some kids to take pornographic images of themselves and send it to them. The occurences of actual pedophiles in person meeting kids and actually performing pedophilia are SO FAR AND BEYOND rarer than the occurences of online predators f****** kids in the head. Online predators also have so many avenues where they can pretend to be children in order to interact with them while that is an impossibility in real life. Also, nothing is stopping creeps from doing real-life things to children with smartphones around, just look at all of the vigilante predator catcher videos on Youtube. The damage the internet AND real life does is so much worse than the damage real life by itself does. IMO you're reaching really hard just to be a contrarian here.
0
Idiot_Savant_131 day ago
-4
\[\[Children have litterally never been safer at any point in human history\]\]
So you're either incapable of reading the news, or unable to retain it, cuz clearly you're missing major headlines & trends.
Want to try again with a fact-based statement or is spewing absurd absolutes the limit of your contributions?
-4
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
+2
How tabloids report stuff and how reality is tend to be different.
When violence/murder/assault/r*** goes down basically nobody reports it.
When it goes down for years and there's a slight statistical blip for a year you get a hundred breathless headlines "murder rate up!!!"
So anyone who gets their knowledge of the world from *vibes* and tabloids will tend to be perpetually convinced that everything is constantly getting worse.
https://imgbox.com/bzeERZGi
https://imgbox.com/BvWUU2dR
https://imgbox.com/DNyC6WFq
2
Idiot_Savant_131 day ago
-4
You are conflating *reporting* with *reality*, of course.
I believe we're considering this concept on rather different layers.
-4
exciting_one20051 day ago
+1
True but for many a phone is the only source of accessing the internet
1
stray_r1 day ago
+1
But almost everything that I used 25 years ago to teach my self guitar and still use now for programming and 3d printing resources are within most government definitions of social media - sites with user generated content.
Printables and similar stl sites
GitHub
Guitar Tab sites
Listnook
Discord
Independent bulletin boards
All social media.
1
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
+5
A lot of people when they hear "social media" they reflexively think "I hate Zuckerberg."
In reality it's every little Web forum that ever helped you out with an IT query. It's Wikipedia. It's every little forum where queer kids found community away from creepy right wing religious parents.
And many of those forums are being forced to close because its expensive to meet insane government demands for "social media platforms"
5
Kewkky1 day ago
-2
And none of those will be available to kids outside the home if phones are banned, access will be limited to parental-controlled electronics as it should be (until 16 since you kind of need a mobile phone if you're going to be driving around). You would still be able to teach yourself guitar and learn how to program and 3d print, you just won't have a mobile phone for it. I see it as a win.
-2
AgentDigits1 day ago
+2
Govts are definitely going about it the wrong way.
Our govts should be working with phone companies to have child only plans that severely restrict what they can access, cause parents are not doing it themselves. Make them cheaper.
People with multiple phone plans to their name should be contacted and offered cheaper child only plans. People with other plans for work devices or older kids can just specify that.
Fully ban devices in schools, don't even let them past the front door. If kids sneak them in, confiscated them and fine their parents.
Ban them in public spaces like restaurants too. Treat it like smoking. Other people don't wanna hear kids on their devices at full blast.
2
Sherool1 day ago
+16
They don't even know how to enforce the 16 year thing, just expect the tech companies will figure it our or else pay a fine, so get ready to hand over your ID papers to prove you are not a kid I guess :/
16
vriska11 day ago
Everyone needs to fight bills like this!
0
landyc1 day ago
+6
Bro YouTube is as bad as social media on the front of propaganda and misinformation.
This stuff should even be considered dangerous for adults
6
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
+18
Because it never was and never will be about child-safety or child wellbeing.
It's entirely about locking down the web by requiring everyone to go through "age verification" sites requiring photo or ID which of course can be recorded and monitored.
Gotta do away with anonymous political speech and anonymous criticism of politicians.
It's why as soon as a few governments started they all started gleefully joining in.
Anyone who falls for the claim its about protecting kids is just gullible.
Online forums have become the primary location for political speech in the modern age. Hence the rush to lock them down.
18
obalovatyk1 day ago
+9
\*and selling all the PII to the highest bidder.
9
GrnShttrdLyte1 day ago
+2
Norway currently has almost zero issues with everything you said in your post. As a former American (decades ago), I feel safer in my ability to speak freely in Norway. Far more so than I ever felt in the US, in fact. I think limited free speech isn't even a part of the negative reactions to this. The part most Norwegians are concerned about is privacy, and what companies are going to do if they have access to our personal number and BankID with limited protection from data leaks.
That information is key to our security and identification, and handing it over just to use Listnook is asinine, for adults. If it happens I predict many will drop it altogether. When FB decided to charge a fee if you aren't willing to give them access to everything for whatever they wanted to do with it to avoid the fines they were accumulating weekly for data security breaches, as many that could dropped it.
edit-added rest of the cutoff sentence
2
McGrevin1 day ago
-1
Except age verification can be done without the verification site knowing your social media accounts and without the social media accounts knowing your true ID. It's just a matter of whether countries will do it that way. I believe the EU already created an open source app that achieves this.
-1
EmbarrassedHelp1 day ago
+5
The EU app is a shitty wrapper that connects to closed source backends. It also bans users from rooting/jailbreaking their devices, bans installing different operating systems, and requires that you install Google Play Services/IOS equivalent.
5
WTFwhatthehell1 day ago
+1
always was and always will be by design.
Some people hear "oh but it can be done it a way that protects privacy" then ignore that 1: they don't even try, 2: they typically f*** privacy even harder along the way.
But plenty of people eat it up with a spoon and never look further than that first false reassurance.
1
exciting_one20051 day ago
-5
I mean monitoring by government is necessary evil. Like in this case it's impossible to execute this order without some information retrieval. But politicians being politicians will use that to their advantage. Only hope is the agency handling this is not-for-profit and completely apolitical (A dim hope I know)
-5
hera-fawcett1 day ago
+4
>monitoring by government is necessary evil
is it tho?
at this day and age where technology is *so* smart and can identify ppl via drones or flock; where we are always identified by device and ip; where our data is continually sold to advertising profilers (or the dark web, to social engineer and scam money)--- is it necessary that the government monitors who is on the internet, why, and what theyre doing? and ofc, how old they are/who they are?
4
WorstCPANA1 day ago
+5
So you think we should legally pick out corporate 'winners' in an effort to censor the internet for kids?
Okay great, google just spent $200m to pass this bill so the only media 10-16 year olds can consume is youtube. Facebook gave our politicians $100m so they can monopolize the 16-18 year ranges. Oh wait, from the top rope, amazon just gave $150m to politicians so that 8-10 year olds will only be able to consume twitch streaming.
That's your genius approach?
5
PleasantWay71 day ago
Why don’t parents just f****** teach kids how to manage their time and the things they are exposed to. It varies by kid and requires constant interactive attention from the parents. Then the kids can actually function on their own one day.
These one size fits all “I don’t have time to parent, do it for me government” is how we ended up in this situation with 18-28 year olds barely able to operate on their own in society. They have a f****** anxiety attack if asked to call someone on the phone to make a reservation.
0
bonedaddy19741 day ago
+5
I agree I make our kids wait until 13 for a phone and no socal media until we feel they are ready
5
wet_tank1 day ago
+4
Remember when we used to laugh at China for their surveillance and the great firewall. Welp.
4
Teddy_Lottie23 hr ago
+5
this concerted effort to identify every internet user is really disconcerting
5
Grave_Knight15 hr ago
+1
So it can accomplish nothing, but it'll make some shitty politicians feel better about themselves. Didn't do much for Australia other than now the children lie about their age.
How about this, for a novel concept, regulate social media sites better?
1
FTL_Cat14 hr ago
+1
I love a bunch of Americans commenting on a society they know nothing about.
1
Pablito-san13 hr ago
+1
The cabinet (in a minority position) has suggested it. Misleading headline.
1
vriska11 day ago
+2
How likely is this bill to pass? Also if you live in Norway you need to contact your representatives and say no to this.
2
GrimHoly1 day ago
+1
If you think this is to protect children I have a bridge to sell you.
1
vooglie17 hr ago
+1
The comments are going to be flooded by fuckwit american "freeze peach" absolutists. Ignore them.
1
Atrio-Ventricular1 day ago
While I do think social media shouldn't be allowed for kids under 16, putting the ban on the websites/ apps is one of the worst ways to go about it. It's pretty easy for devices to have parental controls on them. I'm really wondering how many neglectful parents there are
0
movack1 day ago
+5
A lot of people are too technologically illiterate to know how to use parental controls. Kids also are clver with finding ways around things. If you make a YouTube kids account for them, they just sign out and sign in with their own account.
5
MagicalSkyMan13 hr ago
+1
Why shouldn't kids under 16 be able to use social media?
1
Asusrty1 day ago
-1
Ban it for the over 50s too. It's probably more harmful to them and by extension society.
-1
HiCZoK1 day ago
-3
It’s nonsense. You can’t take away freedoms from young people. It never works
-3
Castello_0123 hr ago
It's so hard to tell what the greater evil is. Norwegians are denied digital freedom but in exchange it could help control one of the most addicting products on the market right now. I can understand why a country like Norway would be so concerned about it, especially from a productivity and overall well-being standpoint.
Norway does not benefit from the profit margins of almost all of these tech companies, so while their citizens are addicted, it's not like it results in an uptick in GDP to compensate in the social toll. I don't think I need to tell you why social media is awful or what it can do to a 16 year old child and it's clear parents can't protect them or be expected to teach them proper use.
On the other hand VPNs and other methods will be used to subvert any attempt to block access (which I am sure there is a work around too or at least has been considered) resulting in the opposite effect. Then there's the question of digital freedom and where this could end.
The only reason they're going with this option is probably because it's cheapest, using existing infrastructure, so my money is on this backfiring or not even passing when a rational person decides to speak up.
0
Jamizon119 hr ago
IMHO-
I think you have to start somewhere. The techno lords certainly aren’t looking out for your best interests, and many parents (or so it seems) let their children live their entire waking lives on a digital device.
Going back is sometimes the best way forward.
0
[deleted]1 day ago
-1
[deleted]
-1
CanadianDragonGuy1 day ago
+1
Hey, guess who's behind this c***? [fuckin Facebook](https://youtube.com/shorts/zZ98DPIp0a4)
1
-CerN-22 hr ago
I am almost willing to bet that in less than 40 years, you can be flagged by a government AI system as someone who is likely to commit a crime, and be arrested without having done anything wrong.
0
PrivacySure18 hr ago
16 ? Okay this is good but it doesnt really solve the real problem...
When I see that young woman I know going full anxiety and almost borderline because of TikTok standards and alienation, the problem is bigger. Superficiality completely occulting the real values of life, money references all the time, Zero education or usefull information, that thing is destroying the brain of too much people.
0
Bleakwind1 day ago
-9
Do it!
-9
l_____I1 day ago
-2
The right thing to do would be to charge the parents with child neglect anytime their child gets groomed, bullied, or makes threats and force them to learn how to set up parental controls and fine them a f*** ton of money as well. Honestly if you buy your child a phone and can't figure out how to set parental controls up you're a f****** idiot and deserve to lose custody.
123 Comments