Parents won't parent without a change in incentives.
That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
That's great messaging, but what exactly are you materially proposing that's different?
If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.
And that's fine. I'm pretty sure my nephew's high school friends will all quit Facebook for once and move to a decentralized platform or even install their own servers. The teenagers can go pretty far and learn advanced stuff if they want to. I bet their minecraft home is more complex.
And I already know their opinion on the age restrictions.
Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.
A lack of age checks and zero legal liability for giving kids access to social media is the current state. Which is to say a big "Too bad!" to the kids who have access to social media now.
I don't know, if the biggest companies in the world were setting up outside schools and in cul-de-sacs and aggressively selling colorful heroin with cartoon mascots my first reaction wouldn't be to blame parents for failing to prevent the childhood heroin addiction epidemic and call for arresting them.
I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.
Parents can still be held legally liable without any online age checks. Expanding criminal neglect to include social media access is in lieu of age verification.
Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm very skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents.
And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.
If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48706560 - 15 hours ago, 298 comments
That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Your proposal to punish parents does the same.
How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.
And I already know their opinion on the age restrictions.
It seems like it’s been easy for every corporate-backed actor to come up with solutions that burden everyday citizens.
Now we’re yet again burdened to solve a problem corporations created.
Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.
However, I simultaneously think that a lot of “personal responsibility” culture is very convenient ideology for corporations.
Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is a failing of personal obligation, agency, and responsibility.
A whole bunch of things that make good parenting so difficult are directly the fault of corporations.
There is zero mandatory paid parental leave in the United States. I wonder how much corporate money goes into maintaining that status quo?
I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.
You are asking for society to bear the burdens of the people you want to change. That is bad policy.
Social Media isn't even as bad as Tobacco I'd say let alone Heroin.
And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.