this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
763 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
3414 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not the government's job to tell adults to not partake in self-harm. Kids don't know better.
But government can take away the means or incentive for self harm. It is just a matter of society agreeing. That will never happen in the USA and Americans are fine. Norway agreed and they are fine.
Right... the land of the free is clearly an example for everyone, the epitome of societal progress.
Sorry, but that logic is absolute and total bullshit.
Adults are extremely bad at making decisions in their best interests too. Why does the government have to oppress kids to protect them, but you when the exact same logic is applied to adults, that’s a problem?
It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong. Kids should have autonomy too.
Kids are disadvantaged in a number of ways compared to adults
It's you who was suggesting adults of certain age should be banned from social media, not me. You don't get to then say 'It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong.' in the next sentence. You're being a hypocrite.
There's a good reason we don't let kids eat sand, hit their friend, drive cars, vote, watch porn, drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. Their brains are undeveloped. They don't know any better. They're entitled to autonomy when they're capable of it.
My point was that anyone sensible would immediately see the problem with my suggestion, and that would perhaps lead them to understand why enforcing the same rule against kids is wrong.
And again, I’m sorry, but your reasoning is weak as fuck. Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?
I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won't develop further, then there's not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).
That said, I'm against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).
Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.
Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.
Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.
99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.
Sure, but the "25 years old" figure comes from when the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently developed (i.e. reaches peak volume). That part of the brain has a lot to do with cognitive control, and it's generally a time when most people have made or are about to make very long-term decisions, such as careers, relationships, etc.
The age of 18 for being an "adult" is even more arbitrary, 25 is a pretty decent cut-off that has some scientific merit. I'm not saying we should base any laws on it, I'm just saying that after that point, you're probably about as prepared to make these types of choices as you'll ever be, so if you have a mental development disability, we should probably end any restrictions around that time unless you specifically opt-in to additional protections.
Sure, which is why every rule like this should have exceptions. For example, I think we should allow 16yos (and perhaps 15yos) to vote, if they can answer important questions about how government works (i.e. what does a Senator do vs a House Rep?), policy choices of various candidates, etc. As in, demonstrate that they are actually interested in politics instead of just being pushed/manipulated by their parents/other adults. That type of "test" should exist for any policy where there's an age gate. Who is in power absolutely will impact 16yos before they get a chance to vote, so it makes a ton of sense to give them a say if they're aware of the political process.
But once you're an adult, society has essentially decided that you're free to screw up your life. We let you smoke, drink (in some areas), go into debt, join the military, etc. If we're okay with that, there's no reason to limit your choices on other things as well.
Going back to the topic at hand, if this law needs to exist, there should be a way for younger kids to demonstrate understanding of the dangers of social media, how to recognize predators, etc in order to get access before that legal cutoff. But even if that exists, I'm still against it because of the privacy violations that would need to exist to actually enforce this law. If this is just a token law and is effectively neutered by other privacy laws, maybe it's not an issue. I don't know Norwegian law, but I do have a similar law here and it absolutely involves privacy violations to enforce (i.e. have to provide government-issued ID to many websites now).
I disagree with you quite strongly on the topic of elections, I don’t see why being able to demonstrate knowledge of trivia is necessary for being able to express your political preference.
Personally, I would open it to anyone who is interested in voting may do so. There is basically no good reason against this, in my opinion.
Again, the pre-frontal cortex development stuff is as close to pseudoscience as it gets. We don’t really understand how a lot of brain function works, so the entire field absolutely reeks of phrenology to me.
Oh, and what a surprise! It’s being used to justify oppression. Isn’t that fun? Just like good old times!!
Government structure isn't trivia, it's a pretty foundational part of an election and part of K-12 education. You need to know which promises a candidate can and cannot deliver to make an informed decision IMO. This doesn't apply to anyone 18+ because the Constitution (at least here in the US) guarantees a right to vote, so this would merely be a metric to separate interested underage individuals from those w/ crazy parents who want to try to stuff ballot boxes. We should also probably require anyone under 18 who votes to do so at a private ballot booth (as opposed to mail voting, for example), without their parents present, so they can't be coerced into voting a particular way. If you have a legal guardian, there's always the possibility of that guardian manipulating you to serve their own interests, and that needs to be accounted for in any broad-reaching policy like extending voting access.
Fair, but that's like saying "we don't know the exact terrain of Mars so we can't build a rover." We know a lot about how brains develop, what parts of the brain do what, and so on. We use it in developing treatments for the brain, and those treatments work, and we're learning more about why those treatments work every day.
Yes, there's no magical cutoff for brain development because everyone is different. But there is a range, and AFAIK the consensus is that the brain is largely completed developing (however you define that) by your early 20s. Some people are ready sooner than that, some aren't ready until later, but in general, most people can be considered "fully developed" around 20-25 yo. There's little to no scientific evidence that 18 is a reasonable number for much of anything, and that number seems to be largely driven by culture (i.e. you're strong enough to work on your own, so go work on your own).
I'm not suggesting any change in official or unofficial policy WRT age, and I think we largely agree that we should have more consideration for maturity (again, however we define that) rather than age. An 18yo dating a 17yo is a lot different than a 17yo dating a 14yo, yet the former is technically illegal in many areas while the latter is fine. But that doesn't mean any discussion about age is unproductive, and having some age ranges makes a lot of sense when reasoning about a problem.
That's a bit reductionist.
Yet more oppressive shit for no good reason.
Who fucking cares if someone knows, or doesn’t, who, or what, a legislator is? It doesn’t matter. 99.999% of voting adults might just about be able to name the President, but we don’t need them to confirm that. All they need to do is put a mark next to a candidate whom presumably they’ve heard about. Or maybe they haven’t. Who gives a shit? The important thing is that we do not exclude people who do give a shit.
The sort of tests you propose historically have been used to disenfranchise black voters, and you’re just suggesting that they be used to disenfranchise young voters. More phrenology vibes.
Your whole “private poll booth” thing is again just needless and exclusionary. Again, what’s to stop an adult child being coerced into voting a certain way, or an adult with an abusive partner, or even just housemates? All of these people and more are very capable of manipulating others into serving their interests, and yet you are only interested in abridging the rights of children. Maybe we should also force disabled people to come and vote in person, too? And if they can’t, because their wheelchair doesn’t fit, well… at least they weren’t coerced!!
I’m not convinced that we do. We think we know a few things, but a lot of what we “knew” about brains has been proven completely wrong time and time and time again. This is just the latest, wrong, thing. So yeah, phrenology. I’m not interested in it at all.
This obsession with making something which is not measurable (maturity) into something which is (number of days alive on the planet) isn’t helpful. So god knows why we add that extra hoop of “brain development” into there, it’s just yet another unknown unmeasurable.
Yeah, sure. That screams that you don't advertise, but rather oppose banning adults and above that all age groups. You are backpedaling and moving the goal posts. It would be much more adult to accept the flaw of your first comment.
That's a perfectly valid discussion to be had.