

The solution is simple but there’s not enough political motivation to do anything, there is more incentive to do bare minimum. regulate marketing on the internet, enact laws that prohibits intrusive marketing ad platforms.


The solution is simple but there’s not enough political motivation to do anything, there is more incentive to do bare minimum. regulate marketing on the internet, enact laws that prohibits intrusive marketing ad platforms.


I understand what your trying to say, but realize we have probably vast amount of laws today that only exist to protect people and children on the same basis i’m arguing.
Think about anything that is harmful and illegal, we can say well, you as a person should know that you shouldn’t eat moldy meat, so why do we need laws for selling moldy meat. (bad example, but you can probably find a better one)
Also reflect about the legal process and how do they compare. For example if you start a beer brand and market towards minors via different ways ( or another product that is definitely illegal), vs you own huge social platform which you market towards kids, but you platform has ads or content that is illegal to market in traditional media. I would guess that your beer company would automatically end up in court via existing court processes, and the social media platform might be sued by private citizens and if they are lucky they might settle out of court.
And why is that? Why do we have a bunch of protection laws for simpler things, that I would consider is easier for a parent to understand and educate their children about and say we as a society have to take the responsibility to ensure that kids or grownups have vast amount of protection.
if we expect parents to SOLE responsibility for what their kids are doing online and what they are subjected to, then why would we not require the same for other things that are illegal today, alcohol tobacco, driving a car, not wearing seatbelt etc…
How much money do we spend to educate people on drugs and alcohol harms, compared to harms of internet?
Personal opinion, we have all been lobbied that platforms don’t have same responsibilities to ensure that they benefit society. our opinions don’t come out of the thin air, they spend huge (billions of billion world over) amount of money to shape laws and public opinion, this is more or less a fact.


And of they can’t, because they can’t. Every parent is not the ideal parent and will never be, heck there’s parents who are retarded (in the literal sense).
But lets say it’s the average tech illiterate parent, who thinks computers are a gaming machine for kids. Imagine the amount of social engineering and how the marketing departments of companies trying to make kids addicted to their platform. The industries are pouring trillions of dollars in marketing, are you confident that regular parents have a chance of competing with them?
i’m in no way of supporting this because it’s done for other nefarious reason, just commenting on the troupe that parents is responsible for their own kids. We can say that all day, but the reality is that they don’t know what impact it has on their kids mental health and how damaging short term dopamine addiction is for their children. Society is still responsible to help parents navigate healthy behavior for their children.
Tbh if children was the concern of this law, then you would allow parents to sue tiktok and other platforms that have made their children addicted to the platform. You should also be able to sue influencers for promoting stuff to children (they know the age of their userbase).
Still parenting is hard, especially when you are competing with phds in behavioral science or psychologists that help these platforms design their addiction mechanism.


Europe = Germany, otherwise its paris or spain, italy is an island next to new york
It is very uncharitable, because you are cherry-picking things, I cant not write the complexity of life in a post. Your making up stuff that I havent stated.
And poeple who shouldn’t have kids do have kids, that is reality. And even if you ave parents that are not the ideal parent, do you think kids should suffer for that. Because in the real world we do laws that are only ment to protect people from stuff that is harmful.
So you are advokating that alcohol should not have legal age limit, because parents are responsible for their kids? Seatbelts why have laws for that, drugs, hey because you as a person and kid, parent should know it’s bad.
Why even have school be mandatory, parents are responsible to teach their kids how to read and write (because that has worked great right).
this is how you argue.