this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
108 points (80.0% liked)
Technology
83158 readers
4108 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess in response to your last paragraph, the issue is the predatory nature of the attention addiction machines these companies make.
You could compare it to a child that got in to a van that had "free candy" written on the side. The door was open, if you assume someone was standing next to the van asking the kid to get in, that would be advertising. Now the kid gets abducted. Their "attention" is held hostage in the case of social media etc.
Now, would the parents have had to tell the kids to not get in to a van with free candy written on it for them to be able to report it to the police? Bad luck otherwise? Now what if every month a new van rocks up with more bells and whistles, its a different colour, its got flames down the side, whatever - the point is its different and cool and more appealing each time. More kids go missing. The "predators" have figured out what makes these kids tick and what makes them more likely to get in the van every time.
It's a bit of an out there and confronting comparison but really, these companies are praying on your mental instead of your physical, which apparently is free game. They are still predators.
They know the harm their platforms cause, they suppress studies that report that harm, they cover it up, they fight tooth and nail and spend millions lobbying government to let them continue to do it.
Back on track sorry, schools are also responsible but you run in to the same issues once companies start targetting school kids like google did with chromebooks - the shittest PCs sold at a loss just so they could attempt to hook the younger generation in to their ecosystem of surveilance and advertising early.
Companies will NEVER protect the children. They will only ever protect shareholders, profits and their pedo CEOs.
Real change will only ever come from real (not sponsored) education, government legislation that isnt bullshit (I dont know what this would look like but ID checking isnt it) and holding the tech bros increasingly accountable for their fucked up apps.
So, for the "it's the parents fault" bit I'll say this. Parents are the arbiters of Internet access in their homes. If that van with "Free Candy" written on it pulled into their driveway and they didn't call the police or warn their children not to get in the van, yes I would consider them liable.
The fact is, lots of parents do know their children are using social media like Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok etc. A lot of parents are my age and younger (the age where we grew up with the internet and social media in its toddler years if not it's infancy). A lot of us do know the dangers (and are probably addicted ourselves).
What some of us may lack is the knowledge to use parental controls effectively (and at least some of that is because we do dumb shit like using the same password for everything, or not changing default passwords).
But I also think that some of us (looking at you collective shout and other organizations like it) just want to offload our responsibilities onto these companies so we have someone to blame.
And even though I agree that what these companies are doing is wrong (directly targeting minors, deliberately making their platforms addictive, collecting data on minors etc), and I want them held accountable, I also don't think ID collection is warranted, and I view this as a way to violate privacy and collect data for surveillance purposes which I believe is wrong to do to people who haven't done anything illegal.
Even if that weren't the case, these companies also just cannot be trusted to safeguard the PII data they're wanting to collect. So as far as I'm concerned the ID verification thing is just not going to work.
I agree with most of that, however the mentality for liability is the same as "well what was she wearing" victim blaming. The parents arent the perpetrators.
I agree that parental knowledge to properly moderate kids usage of the internet is an issue - a skill issue. But that doesnt mean its their fault the kids get addicted to these things and exploited. The ones who openly do not care are a different story, thats child neglent as far as I am concerned.
I agree age verification and ID checks are absolutely not the answer and trying to censor the internet is not the answer. I think the answer more likely lies in holding companies accountable. There are reasons standards exist in many industries - to protect the consumer. As far as I am aware no standards exist when dealing with social media platforms.
Apologies I had a technical difficulty and posted the same comment several times.