Taggart 2d ago
It was my job for a decade to try to keep tweens and teens safe online. Let me tell you what you already know: no law or technology can do it. There are no lengths kids won't go to to talk to friends without prying eyes. The harder you try to lock it down, the dodgier their solutions will be.
Show threads1m0n42d ago
@mttaggart I am not sure what this is truly about: ID verification? SM ban? I believe these are two different topics. Once research shows that something has a negative health effects, it has to be limited or regulated. Take alcohol for instance. I believe I am not the only one who drank alcohol before the legal age. So, yes, kids find ways to get around prohibitions. However this is about not letting them drink regularly and become alcoholic.
Would you legalise alcohol at any age?
Show threadCliff'sEsportCorner1d ago
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart kids get their hands on illegal drugs without much effort, so even if they lack the skills to defeat this stuff how long do you think it would take black market to exploit the demand?
Show threads1m0n41d ago
@CliffsEsport @mttaggart
A minority of kids do that. And the numbers have drastically dropped on that front. Gen Z, now adult, is the generation the most focused on health and wellbeing we've ever seen.
Smoking isn't cool anymore.
Show threadCliff'sEsportCorner1d ago
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart Doesn't match data I have both from primary data collection myself, as well as lifelong study of crime. Context studied forensics & criminology in college and have received research grant for studying crime. Talk to kids that trust you, local LEO or County attorneys or check local crime data. Or gang activity, etc I've interviewed convicts, kids, including gang affiliated.
Show threads1m0n41d ago
@CliffsEsport @mttaggart then I'm asking again: would you remove restrictions on alcohol or drugs just because teens find other ways to get those things anyway?
I don't think that's a valid argument.
Show threadTaggart 1d ago
@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport When it comes to social media (and AI for that matter), there is a galaxy of regulatory options besides outright banning and age verification. Exploring those benefits all, not just minors. As an example, severe penalties for designs found to promote addictive usage.
Show threads1m0n41d ago

@mttaggart @CliffsEsport

"As an example, severe penalties for designs found to promote addictive usage."

This would imply:
A research team for every new design or solution paradigm that is suspected to develop addictive behaviours
A research to be carried on to prove the point
The governments issuing fines or a penalties
The actual compliance times to be allowed to modify the solution

We're looking at a 3 years period at best, during which a 12 y/o become 15 and develops such addiction.

Show threadTaggart 1d ago
@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport Yes, better solutions can take time to implement. I don't know why you're discounting the harms of age verification regimes, which are no less onerous and destructive to privacy/supportive of surveillance states, etc. And worse: they just don't work for the intended purpose, which was my original point.
Show threads1m0n41d ago

@mttaggart @CliffsEsport if you read my first toot, I specifically asked what you were talking about.

For the record I'm totally against providing an ID to access online services.

On the other hand I believe a non-enforceable ban on SM for U16 kids is necessary. Because it has educational purposes on society as a whole. Just like the obligation of wearing a helmet for cyclists under a certain age or age restrictions for certain video games/movies.
And schools would enforce this somehow.

Show threadTaggart 1d ago

@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport "Somehow."

No they won't. I was the enforcer. You cannot do it.

I'd also point out the material difference between a positive obligation ("wear a helmet") and a ban ("Don't do x"). Time and again we find that bans and penalties only serve to hurt the users, teach no lessons, and make society actually worse.

I don't want kids using social media. I think bans are the worst way to achieve that end.

Show threads1m0n41d ago

@mttaggart French middle schools don't authorize smartphone usage inside the school. Kids get a disciplinary note if they use them.
And the pedagogy follows. There are no WhatsApp group to work on a given project, everything is done inside the school or at home. Smartphones are instead tolerated starting from high schools. That's the enforcement I want.

SM are toxic and addictive. And bans do work. Parents don't beat their kids anymore. That happened thanks to bans and an improved society.

Show threadTaggart 

@s1m0n4

Parents don't beat their kids anymore.

We are living in different realities.

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/corporal-punishment-schools-still-legal-many-states

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6967056/

Apr 13 at 4:45pmWeb
Show threadTaggart 1d ago
@s1m0n4 School policies about device usage are a massively different animal compared to a legal ban. Either way though, if punishment is the outcome, you have a problem. And also either way, I guarantee that any restriction you think is working for kids isn't working as well as you think.
Show threads1m0n41d ago
@mttaggart you just prove my point with the two articles you linked: where there's no ban on corporal punishments, whether at school or at home, this harmful educational technique still widespreadedly occur.
Show threadTaggart 1d ago
@s1m0n4 No, the behavior continues regardless of state law. It's society that changes the norms.
Show threadCliff'sEsportCorner1d ago
@mttaggart @s1m0n4 If you follow any local news you'll find worse than that. Not gonna link it but I follow local crime blotter, and in just recently mother is facing charges over trafficking minor daughters. Maybe talk to some people that work in child protection services or volunteer orgs that actually try and help kids.