Or perhaps we should expect parents to take some responsibility for their kids' screen use?
On the flip side, I let them read whatever they want, including things that are upsetting or that other parents would say aren't appropriate, and I talk to them about what they've read.
Overall, I think these policies have meant more thoughtful media consumption, and more time outside and with friends. I'm not enough of a fool to think our rules are enforced at friends' houses, but we've chosen to live in a community that's largely on the same page.
None of this stuff is easy, but as a parent, it's the job.
Everybody has a right to free speech, and free speech frequently requires anonymous speech. This is why the protection of journalists' sources is so important, and why principled journalists are willing to go to jail to protect them.
You yearn for the end and couldn't care less about the means. But there are also those who couldn't care less about the end, but yearn for the means.
How can you distinguish between the two? And which do you think best describes the parties behind this global push to de-anonymize the Internet?
Pornography is a form of speech btw.
Because--unlike free speech--those are not essential to freedom and democracy.
Care to answer my questions?
The social media companies could have done the socially responsible thing a decade ago and avoided all this.
Don't let your kids have an internet-connected phone, or keep it locked down so they don't have parasitic apps preying on their pre-frontal immaturity until they're old enough to handle it.
All of this needs to be done intentionally, of course, or it will feel like the kids are being punished. But I can't emphasize this enough... it's our job as parents to raise our kids.
Again, Meta and TikTok and their ilk could have avoided all of this by just being socially responsible organizations, instead of sociopathic.