I saw this article, which made me think about it…

Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes world-first laws


Seeing what kind of brainrot kids are watching, makes me think it’s a good idea. I wouldn’t say all content is bad, but most kids will get hooked on trash content that is intentionally designed to grab their attention.

What would be an effective way to enforce a restriction with the fewest possible side effects? And who should be the one enforcing that restriction in your opinion?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    28 days ago

    I mean, you can’t really do it without parents.

    But there could be a law that any phone tied to a number a minor possesses is locked down so it can’t install the apps. It wouldn’t stop web based, but apps seem to be a worse problem for various reasons.

    It’s not even so much the content that’s the problem, it’s the delivery mechanism, how it effects dopamine release, and how damaging those changes can be to a developing brain.

    Its similar to the lootbox system that was regulated in various countries. Human brains will keep trying the next item in their feed because there’s a chance something good shows up. If every post was good it would actually cause less addiction.

    But a child has shit tier impulse control. They’ll going to keep pulling the proverbial level forever, wading thru shit for the slightest dopamine hit. All the meanwhile still being influenced by what they scroll past.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      Yes, parents obviously still pay an important role. But we regulate many things for people under the age of 18 to generally good effect.