this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
158 points (100.0% liked)

Reddit

21644 readers
46 users here now

News and Discussions about Reddit

Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules


Rule 1- No brigading.

**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **

YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.



Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm split on this because on one hand all these platforms are have a well-known link to poor mental health in teenagers however I think this might be another instance where we are legislating something that should be handled by the parents.

[–] SolidShake@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Double edged sword. I don't let my kids on any social media at all and people compare me to Hitler. Then I have to explain how they're the reason I don't let them on social media. All that anonymous hate becomes learning material for real world actions and behaviours. Every small child I know that watches unspeakable is arguably a giant asshole.

[–] Iteria@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

I don't want it because I want to expose my kid to things early and gradually. My kid as had a tablet since 1. No one would know that if I didn't tell them. She doesn't use her tablet as a pacifier because of strong parental controls, boundary enforcement and general parenting. She doesn't have unlimited access to YouTube because I learned that 30 mins is about all she can handle for short form videos. But we are working on tolerance and personal boundary settings with it. She started at about 10mins a day.

She's in elementary and we are slowly dipping into social media. Right now she's locked into platforms where she can only interact with a white list of people.

I don't want the government to scream at me that my way is wrong because shit disengaged parents exist. It's like at the stuff about screen time. It turns out the one study i read was correct. I don't harm or hurt as long as it doesn't replace human interaction.

Letting it be a free for all at 16 isn't going to do anything but make it worse because then kids at that age will get no guidance and it'll just be binging now with less societal care since nothing with be made to onboard children at all.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

On one hand it’s definitely needed, on the other it’s surveillance.

I don’t think it’s up to the parents because if they were informed enough to make that decision then the kids wouldn’t be on it.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let’s just ban kids. Problem solved. Little fuckers can’t handle anything.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you willing to provide government identification to prove you're not a child?

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's my major concern as an Australian.

I don't think there's any real attempt to protect kids, it's more about identifying all users on the internet

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It definitely is, otherwise they could just mandate phone makers institute and effective blocking system in all phones, and then legally enforce that the program be activated on phones bought for minors. They would never have to know any private information, as the phone companies and parents could be held responsible for implementing the system. Plus forcing the companies to develop it themselves prevents fear of having some kind of government controlled blocker that could be abused

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

kids could still use social media on computers and tablets, and there's no way to stop phones being hand-me-downed or ensure adults don't just buy phones for their kids as 'adult' phones.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

By that logic theres no way to stop parents from buying their kid alcohol either, however we still have laws against it… kid gets caught drinking underage, then parent gets in trouble. Its not a novel idea of enforcement

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I'm just saying that embedding software restrictions on phones known to be bought for under 16s isn't going to be especially effective at stopping them from popping up on social media. It would have some impact, but not substantial.

This whole scheme is a farce. It's the government trying to look like they're doing something rather than actually doing things like funneling more money into our public schools.

And let's be honest, the problem is that the world is on fire and the kids are scared. The internet exposes us to that from a very young age these days, but banning it is only going to force our teenagers into blissful ignorance.

[–] infectoid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Lucky I have Lemmy.

[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

collapsed inline media

All this news cycles for 18 websites listed so far (And only 9 actually affected)

Scratch is probably the number 1 site at my school, and there is still no news on if that will be affected or not.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/

(Oh. Kick is restricted, but Rumble is available? I looked at the site earlier this week, and the first post was how Trump is saving the day)

[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Rumble, Odyssey, Bitchute, and everything besides Peertube are all full Nazi cesspits. They are filled with the most heinous crap possible.