Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
That sounds awful why would you keep using a platform like that?
Presumably because all of her friends do, and if she quits using it, then she’ll be left out of her friends’ group chats on IG and be out of the loop on jokes and memes between her friends. Might seem unimportant to an adult, but devastating for a teenager.
Your comment is similar to saying “cyberbullying isn’t real, just turn off the PC”. Because getting pushed out of social spaces on the internet leaves kids feeling isolated, and deprives them of access to shared spaces that their friends use to connect with each other.
One might say “They can just connect in person!” Presumably they do, but the internet is an inescapable part of modern life and that is unlikely to change. We should push for a better internet, rather than telling people to simply stop using it if they’re suffering.
This article is to push legislation to kick her off. She is saying “it would be a good thing for under 16s to be banned from social media”. So I think saying why do you feel this way but continue to engage is a fair point.
This is not the average experience so instead of everyone being punished it should be addressed on an individual level. Plenty of people have a healthy relationship with it.
I used to be bullied hard in elementary for being neurodivergent and “living under a rock”, and I did not know what was cool or uncool because I didn’t have WiFi at home. To illustrate how ridiculous it was, I got bullied for playing Minecraft to the point that if I left my redstone blueprints on my table they would crumple it, and whenever I ate vegetables they would say, “ew vegetables!!!”.
That sounds terrible. I’m sorry you were treated so badly.
But what’s the cost of them being forced to use these online spaces to connect? Is it greater or less than the cost of not using them at all? Seems to me the balance is going farther and farther to the side of using them being worse than not every day. Body shaming, predators, addiction. We didn’t let kids smoke because it increased their social circle did we?
I don’t think kids should be “forced” to use social media to connect. I was trying to say that the current reality is that kids rely heavily on the internet for social connection, whether we like it or not, and telling kids to “just stop using it” is not going to help those that are struggling.
I think there is a need for better government regulation to make social media a healthier place for both kids and adults, but I’m not yet sure what the best implementation of that should look like. Leaving age verification to private companies has already resulted in damaging data breaches and will continue to do so.
Many people advocate for a social media ban for kids under 16, but the predictably imperfect implementation of that means that some kids can easily bypass facial verification and continue using social media, while others cannot and get excluded. I’m reminded of a quote from this article:
We need a way to regulate social media that is both privacy-preserving and also avoids excluding or isolating kids. Maybe some kind of ban for under 16s is the right path, but at a minimum, it needs secure identity verification provided as a service by the government, where your identifying information is never visible to the private companies running the platforms. Because they will fuck it up or abuse it.
Maybe instead of a full ban, we should instead ban advertising targeting youth, and ban algorithmic feeds & suggested content for kids. Make it so teens can only see posts from people they follow, in chronological order, so they eventually run out of new things to see and close the app for the day.