this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
207 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
82332 readers
3345 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've been seeing this or some variant of it, as if current protections are sufficient and we just need better parents. Yet having this provides another layer to teach and monitor.
Also the damage social media does for a 16 year old is far less than an 11 or 13 year old.
It's more about experience than age. If you prevent 13 year olds from gaining online experience, they'll have the same level of inexperience when you expose them to the internet at 16.
So you agree it's good to expose them in a limited way between 13-16 so they gain some experience without being preyed on by predators like Epstein and Kotick?
You agree the law is good then or do you think we should hook babies up to iPads to build up immunity like RFK and the antivax cultists that believe in chickenpox parties over regulations.
Or even a 6 year old judging by the amount of literal toddlers with full blown iPads