For all those that think this is the government overstepping with an unenforceable law, you are not grasping the intent correctly. Declaring that we have democratically decided to have an age limit for social media means that we have laid the groundwork for collective action. This means that suddenly schools, parents, teenagers themselves, etc. all have a reason and a mandate for keeping young people off platforms that we believe to be detrimental to their development and well-being. True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.
Exactly!
It’s not about Totalizing Enforcement. What it changes is the cultural norm. Not right away but over time.
An age limit on alcohol never stopped anyone of any age to acquire alcohol, but it sets the societal bar for what’s acceptable. You don’t wanna be the parents that gave your kids alcoholic beverages at 13.
It’s always a little jarring how everyone very readily believes that the Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world, but won’t believe that the incremental policy changes we implement here have any effect 🤷♂️
As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc…
True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.
American here who has visited Scandinavia a couple times.
There are so many little differences, but they add up to a staggering divide in the amount of mutual trust and cooperation you see in little everyday interactions.
Well.
Anything good I encounter in cultures that interest me is similar to the matching part of the Scandinavian cultures, or so it would seem.
And in this particular case it is so.
But in general I don’t like this optimism of “you don’t understand, it’s different in our land of elves as opposed to your sorry piece of clay with goblins in it”.
Centralized social media, controlled by companies, I’d want to be just banned. These are all harm and no good. But in general - see about optimism.
Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.
That happens, I do enjoy playing with sentence structure, and don’t enjoy following the rules of English grammar strictly.
I wanted to say that you are right in this particular case, yes, but you are wrong in your idea that government overreach in Scandinavia is somehow different from it in other places.
Okay, so I never wanted to say that this was unique to Scandinavia. The important part was how we have a a lot of trust based systems (which of course probably exists elsewhere too, but not everywhere) that are really formative for how we make policy and implement it.
This trust should translate to trust to other people, but this has been eroded away for some time because the social contract is being violated.
Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.
Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.
In Tolkien’s lore goblins were made from elves through torture and various degrading conditions and magic.
I agree about trust, but it can’t be global, only friend-to-friend, in real life as well.
And trust in government should be taboo.
I thought it was Morgoth, a valar and not an elf, who made them. In any case it twists the causal relationship because the goblins subsequently make their own pitiful conditions. I do not condone the terminology even if solely on the basis of how reductionist it is. Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people, you can translate trust between people and trust between a government if it is sufficiently representative.
Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people,
That implies that logical structure of that body is negligible, if used to transfer human traits to a government.
Huh? So…only children get to use social media…?
Enforcing it is virtually impossible.
You are correct, but i’d like to expand a bit on how it could be solved.
It requires that all major social networks use BankID for all traffic from Norway.
Bypassing it would require a VPN, which is a simple hurdle.
But the major win here is that parents will enforce this. Parents can point to this law and say that they have to be old enough. As long as enough parents enforce this law and the VPN requirement is there, then it will probably be effective enough
I’m not Norwegian or in Norway and I’m definitely doing this - my kids know of the problems of social networking (including the latest TikTok court docs and what the execs say.)
Some friends say that’s over the top; I just say it is responsible, involved parenting. I value their mental health.
+1, where I live they made phones during school hours illegal. Literally NOTHING changed it’s just that if they want to they can get people in trouble.
How do you do, fellow Norwegian Lemmings? I sure do love being under fifteen, who’s with me, right?
Don’t stop at social media. Put that same limit on religion, too.
Are you pointing out how you don’t like this law or are you actually suggesting we ban religion for kids?
People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.
I’m gonna go with what home dude below said. “People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.”
I’m thinking neither one is really enforceable.
Get off my Lemmy kids
If anything, it would be far better to ban people above a certain age from social media. I’ve seen far more older people get sucked in by online misinformation and become extreme conspiracy theorists than kids.
Ok? Well that’s what an age limit would imply, isn’t it?
I hope they’ve written a very broad definition of social media.
We shouldn’t blocked the social media, they are pure shit, don’t get me wrong, but we should only educate correctly the people to show them how bad it is
What?! Are you implying the parents should educate their kids better? How dare you!?
That ship has long sailed. Most teens will find a way and the ones that don’t will be social rejects.
Social media is fundamentally a part of our social fabric. There’s no going back on that. Instead, collectively we should promote healthier social networks not prohibit them. Norway is fucking stupid here.
Also, wtf are Norvegian parents doing with their infinite oil money they don’t have time to care for their teens?
We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.
And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.
I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.
personally I think it’s the phone that’s more the problem. the persistent access seems like it contributes more to habit forming than the nebulous definition of social media. and that’s much easier to define and possible enforce.
prohibition simply doesn’t work. Especialy with social constructs. Try telling teens that they shouldn’t listen to a specific music genre lol
There are million other better ways to handle and this law just seems like a bunch of populist drivel:
Therefore, the next step will be to push forward an age verification solution specifically for social media.
So, now because some parents suck at parenting I should provide my ID to Instagram? How incredibly dumb is that?
As a parent myself I’m so tired of shitty parents ruining it for everyone. Just talk with your kids, it’s really not that hard.
Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.
I’m really confused by this perspective and your comparsion to cigarettes is completely inadequette — you can’t compare substances to social constructs.
If parents can’t influence their kids how is goverment powered prohibition supposed to do that?
List one social construct that is successfully prohibited by a governing body and actually provides societal value. The only thing comes to mind is porn and take a look how fucking twisted countries where porn is supressed are. This is some north korea level of stupidity.
This law is unprecedented and usually I’d say it should be approached with great care but clearly it’s just populist virtue signaling because it’s simply stupid and is backed by zero scientific or intelectual basis.
I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.
So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?
Where are you getting “corporate website”? when it would affect all social media websites including Lemmy and Mastodon or your moms blog comments.
The idea of online social exchange of opinions or experiences is absolutely a social construct. We literally didn’t have this and now it’s part of every single person’s life in some shape. How can you just prohibit that? Imagine prohibiting phone calls lol it’s incredibly stupid.
Again you compare this to substances and driving? You can’t be serious here? If you can’t even understand this issue then you shouldn’t be parenting let alone tell other people how to.
It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.
As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
Prohibition only feeds black markets.
Except it doesn’t, like with their smoking example.
Or, if you’d like another… there are age requirements for buying alcohol. Based on your comments, there must be a massive thriving black market for selling moonshine to kids, yet I’ve seen zero evidence of such a thing.
deleted by creator
Its possible to have back and forth conversation on a wikipedia user talk page, are they banning wikipedia too? The comments section on a news website? Desktop email clients and hotmail accounts?
I can’t see a way where this doesn’t end up being used to restrict information from wider society. Even just banning kids from the internet, is restricting millions of people who deserve to be able to access the resources on the www
They are allowed on the web, they are not allowed sign up to be members of social media websites. Information should be freely available without being logged in, if it isnt then maybe the platform if the problem not the person or government.
Im eager to know if you are just a negative person looking for flaws or have some legitimate concern you failed to express.
You’re acting like Wikipedia talk pages and especially news site comment sections are some bastions of discourse 😆
They’re all cesspools of shit that don’t bring any joy to anyone except trolls, pedants and energy vampires
What a weird take…
I would highly recommend listening to the If Books Could Kill podcast about the book “The Anxious Generation”. I feel like it’s probably one of their weaker episodes, if I’m honest, because they kind of have a preconceived bias against social media, but I think they basically come around to the conclusion that there is basically no compelling evidence that social media is particularly harmful to young people, in a general sense, and that on the whole, it’s also very useful for young people.
This is just yet more oppression of young people dressed up as if it’s for their best interests.
Government doing parenting now? Bad idea.
Is it? Not dealing with “the other kids have social media so I can too”!
Governments have always been involved in parenting and the education of kids.
