2026-09-18 10:25 UTC
@romli@social.vivaldi.net @markwyner@mas.to But cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are not "engaging with a community and learning stuff". Which is the positive side that blanket bans and age verification prevent.
Treating social media like cigarettes, alcohol or gambling equates socialising with harmful behaviours and substances. But social media (and forums and BBSes before it) is not harmful in itself.
It's Social Media Company behaviour that is harmful. It's the behaviour of some individuals that is harmful. You don't fix "could be exploited by surveillance capitalism, misled by disinformation or targeted by malicious and/predatory individuals" by banning the potential victim until they're 18 and hoping that it's all magically not a problem!
And that's an important distinction in directionality. Legacy age restrictions are "you may harm yourself with this". Social media bans are trying to apply the same approach to "someone else is using this to harm you".
Replies (2)
-
@romli@social.vivaldi.net 2026-09-18 10:42
@ibboard@hachyderm.io @markwyner@mas.to Cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are all associated with community or have been. A pub is by definition a place for people to meet, socialise and consume alcohol. I would agree that a lot of the harm is commercial Social Media Company behaviour but still there is plenty of adult content that is not useful or healthy for young children to consume or have to deal with due to peer pressure. Even in the best possible world, there are very many things that it is not wise for a 5 year old to have to learn.
-
@markwyner@mas.to 2026-09-18 16:06
@ibboard@hachyderm.io This. 100%. I couldn’t find the words to express what I really wanted to say. You nailed it. @romli@social.vivaldi.net