Do you think the social media ban for under 16 year olds is enough?

Question

How effective do you think it will be?

OneViewpoint · Accepted Answer

The trouble with a ban is how do you enforce it?

By making people click a box that says "I certify that I am 16 years of age or older". 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
By depending on parents to police their kids phones and PC's? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The problem is that technology moves much faster than any government. And society is far behind the internet, social media, and now AI. Also, in the US especially, we've seen how easy it is for Corporations with billions at stake to buy government officials to protect themselves with legislation that makes just about anything legal whether or not it's immoral or unethical.

I don't see any way to protect kids or any other vulnerable group from tech once it is released into the internet other than parental vigilance and discipline. Good luck with that crusade.

Zack-Bann · Accepted Answer

As a kid who grew up with unlimited access I have always stood against censorship and age limitations on things that are not adult material.

But as an adult now, looking back on the positives and negatives of the way I grew up: I think if me and my generation didn’t have access to social media before a certain age we might have benefited from having a real world community

My parents used to say “go outside and play”
But when I did go there was no one outside to play with. So I came back in.

That’s why this can’t be a problem solved on the individual level
The whole community needs to collaborate on that

emeraldsaphire · Answer

I made my first YouTube account when I was 13. I had a facebook and a MySpace too. There was almost no moderation back then. I turned out fine, and I don't buy the whole "social media is addictive" thing. In reality Politicians want to control the narrative again so they can go back to graping kids in peace without it going viral on social media. And Giant social media companies want to put smaller niche sites like GAG out of business.

That being said, I got lucky as a kid. I now have a daughter and I'm not letting her get on social media till she's 18. My husband talked about creating a Mastodon instance for he when she's a teen. We could let her and her friends and family on. That way it would be safer. We could moderate and she'd still have a fun social media experience. I also think we need more adult only social sites. At the end of the day parents need to parent. It shouldn't be up to facebook and Donald Trump to raise your kids

sage2021 · Answer

It really concerns me how social media sites have programmed people, especially girls/women to believe what love is because it isn't getting the guy who's 6'2" tall, is the CEO of a company, and doesn't try to tell you what to do, etc.

Meeting someone's criteria is NOT love. SEX is NOT love.

I've heard that it's not cool to be in love with someone anymore. More of social media programming young people's minds.

It's sad that this has happened because there are a lot of good people out there to love and be happy with, but are very lonely just the same.

16 is still too young to get your brain programmed by other people who are only strangers to them in reality.

Our brains are not fully formed until we are age 25. So 16 is still too young in my opinion. I don't even want to say 18, because what I really want to say is not at all! 🚫

LuciusTheOdd · Answer

It’s not gonna help, kids are gonna get past it anyways, You could probably stop some of the Extraordinarily dumb ones, But even that is a bit of a stretch.

More likely than not, you censor Or put as many walls up as you want, All you’re gonna do is make the adults unhappy.

The real solution has been and always will be holding platforms accountable for moderation, And making sure that our children are not being victimized, Which I would argue is the bare minimum standard for any media platform, That and making sure that terrorism doesn’t happen.

Jackblue · Answer

I think it is an incredibly stupid idea. Who is the biggest abuser of children? It is caregivers and other family members. Those sort of people survive by isolating the youth they abuse, the social media ban is a Godsend for them. The Australian government has a bad habit of trying to control people's lives, passing laws to make certain communities alcohol free. In the US only the community's own voters can make such a decision, but Australia's State and Federal governments often decide that for communities. As for the Spanish government, its prime minister makes me want to vomit.

Ez-Bri-Z_v2 · Answer

I dont think it should be banned at all. Let parents decide what they want their kids to have. There is all kinds of ways for parents to lock down their kids' phones and computers now. If they want to keep their kids off social media, then let them do it. I dont like this kind of goverment overreach.

Kaneki05 · Answer

I despise such an act. The only ones who should be censored or banned are those who ask for such things just cause they'll realize all of sudden they don't want it done to them.
It's always so easy to write a check that you don't have to pay for.

MisterWack · Answer

It is not about protecting our kids, it is about surveillance and passing off the blame to the parents.

Companies don’t want to be possibly held accountable for possibly collecting data of minors or losing that data in cyberattacks, so they much rather parent sign off on the child using it then that is out of their hands. When these attacks happen isn’t a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

RandomGirl42 · Answer

Banning is never the solution to anything. They are smart and will figure out some way around it. It's just another form of prohibition and the results will be the same 'cept they prolly won't be as drunk.

CupcakeTheDestroyer · Answer

This isn’t going to stop grooming efforts, if anything it’s just a way for government entities to force someone to connect their anonymous, online persona with who they are irl because the idea that you can do something without knowing who you are terrifies them.

AviatorTom · Answer

Total bans rarely work. People find workarounds, and a ban just encourages that.
It's better to monitor and moderate things, and do things to encourage the action the ban is trying to improve on.
Just look at Prohibition in the US... encouraged the growth of organized crime.

bolverk · Answer

I take it you are referring to the U16 social media ban in Australia, from what I’ve seen/heard from my relatives in Australia that the majority of U16’s had bought VPN’s before the ink had even dried on the legislation.

In reality kids today are more IT savy than the wonks in government (doesn't matter which government or country) what ever the governments do the kids will get ahead of them as soon as they suggest any ban.

Jessica405 · Answer

More than enough! If VPN''s or proxy servers don't work, there is always "parental assistance". Ultimately, users could be driven underground into dark web and deep web, and other iffy places.

FreyaRed · Answer

It's not about children it's about control. Anonymous internet access is a grain of salt in eye of elites. The pleb needs to fear to say too much, that's what they want. They don't care about kids in social media they just exploit them.

Anonymous · Answer

Personally I gew up in the 2000s/2010s and i enjoyed being able to join Facebook like all my other high school friends were doing. Shrug 😔

Ah well. Even then I've never really cared for socials much. Sure I'm on here @thegreenyogi yet as you know, I don't like to stay or I may even leave soon. It's like alcohol - does nothing for me. Same as coffee - I'll drink it, but I don't need it - more so the coffee I'll drink it, the alcohol, vile taste 😳🤕

Apulu_backagain · Answer

Thank God I ain't 16 any more! Yeah!! Keep those rascals off social media!

Tarifa · Answer

There's always a way around it. In some countries, you can't drink alcohol before you're 18. Nothing prevents someone else to buy alcohol for you when you're under 18.

HighValue · Answer

Just outlaw smartphones for anyone under 18.

slatyb · Answer

I think it's stupid and will serve to isolate kids who have no support at home, or who don't fit into their communities.

RavVid · Answer

I think it will only be known in 5 - 6 years as it removes validation from under 16's. Women might be more real in their early 20's. So lets wait till then.

Master_Debator · Answer

I wonder what Boomer Brain came up with that idea... I can already think of like 10 ways to work around any kind of ban.

Maybe_Maybe_not · Answer

If that ban wakes up some parents and makes them reconsider what internet can be, then it's already a valuable societal move for me.

Cidknee · Answer

Probably so but I'm not in the know of some sites out there.

jazzy34 · Answer

It depends on the kid. My sister is 16 (17 this Monday) and she has Insta. No problems. But, then again, she's mature and responsible with it.

WhitneySnow · Answer

Probably a good idea, but my understanding is that there are a lot of ways around it. Again, I would not have agreed with it at age 15.

Hunter-40m · Answer

Banning cannit be solution for any issue instead of banning educating children and families about the ways of effective usage of the internet should do the trick

NathanDavis · Answer

it would not be enough, but I still think it is a good idea...

Anonymous · Answer

"Gen A" is going to be building their lives and careers on social media, so to ban it from them at any age is very reckless and shortsighted. It would be like banning books or libraries from previous generations.

LC75LC71 · Answer

There should be no ban. Instead a limited portion. Like either have or could be successful.. There are ways around everything online.

AgentG111 · Answer

Enough for? Change DOB it's been going on forever. Kids / humans always look for ways around things

RedInnocent69 · Answer

In principle it sounds fine, but it’s not like a switched on 16 year old won’t find a way around it. You can’t really legislate mental health

msc545 · Answer

The risks of social media are completely overstated.

Still-alive · Answer

they'll probably just figure out ways around it

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

No. Trying to shelter turns them into soft punks as adults.

Jeff51 · Answer

No but kids always find away to get online.

BCRanger10 · Answer

It's a start, at least.

molonski2 · Answer

It's a great idea and sends a clear message.

Nikki1989 · Answer

Nope. Not even close.

exitseven · Answer

It will be impossible to enforce.

Miristheiss · Answer

Sure. Maybe 18.

fonduegirl · Answer

Its lazy approach

Shiprex · Answer

No, it should be banned for everyone

Xawyx-2 · Answer

No, it's probably not enough.

loveslongnails · Answer

It will be ineffective.

bubblydoubles · Answer

Should be banned for everyone of all ages.

Sammy098 · Answer

Yes, it is. They should ban porn too

TonyMetal___86 · Answer

Not effective at all...

Caurav1997 · Answer

Good step in right direction

In_Trance · Answer

Social media should be banned for ages 17-49

Godihateyou · Answer

No. It should be banned for everyone. Its a cancer

Tamera952 · Answer

It’s a start.

Do you think the social media ban for under 16 year olds is enough?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you think the social media ban for under 16 year olds is enough?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.