Bluesky CEO Jay Graber: Banning under-16s won't fix social media

https://www.ft.com/content/c6980fc4-97b6-40bf-a3d0-c40c3a6cac56

by sealeck • 6 months ago

6 11 6 months ago

gassi• 6 months ago

"Marlboro CEO: Banning under-16s from smoking won't fix lung cancer"

Not that I agree with the approach (digital IDs, age verification, etc), but of course a social media CEO doesn't want to see it's user base restricted.

bdangubic• 6 months ago

And we are not trying to fix social media but protect our kids...

necovek4• 6 months ago

Smoking is not a tool that can have multiple uses: social media can.

I believe a more apt analogy is with books. There are books we don't want kids to be reading too early, and while there is a higher barrier to entry (enough money to print and publish), we never consider banning all books for under 13s or under 16s!

Let's make harmful content illegal or restricted, but let's also take responsibility as parents to do, well, the parenting.

tingling168• 6 months ago

Let us know when social media is fixed and then we can review an under-16 ban rollback.

ares6234• 6 months ago

Just ban under 16’s from owning and operating smartphones.

It’s physical so easier to enforce at point of sale, during school, at the mall, etc. eventually the social pressure will hopefully subside so home enforcement becomes a non-issue.

necovek4• 6 months ago

I admit to not yet living through the challenge of having my kids exposed to "social media" (aged 9 and 5, no phones yet, the older one does have a laptop with Linux on it), but I feel like we are trying to punt as much responsibility on the government that we as parents are failing at.

The analogy with things like smoking does not really work: social media can be used to educate, to connect and even bridge divides. Yes, it can also be used to harm, but so can a book (its content, not just physically).

If there are specific concerns (eg. adults messing up with kids? videos/photos without consent? shaming of others?), let's make those clearly illegal, and possibly have a parent/guardian vet the social circle.

Otherwise, we don't teach and let the kids learn to selectively digest social media content, and instead they get thrown at it at age 16. But let's admit it, adults are just a bit less pliable to influence than kids.

But my core point is that a government can't be solely responsible for the upbringing of our kids.

ares6234• 6 months ago

Social media is unlike any other problem parents are facing. It is not enough to stop your own children from accessing it or educating your own children. It needs collective action from _all_ parents or else your child will be an outcast. And what is regulation if not enforced collective action. The corporations had 15 years to figure it out themselves and they decided to make it as worst as possible for everyone, and now parents are turning to their elected officials for help.

Bluesky CEO Jay Graber: Banning under-16s won't fix social media

Related Stories