How is protecting kids from the harmful psychological effects of the internet a "moral panic"? Which degenerate website did you grab that headline from?
Increase the difficulty for normies to use it. So only tech suave chads are the only kings of the web again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Should we ban every non-terminal web browser?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I could live with that. Also, I suggest other avenues to explore such as tor, i2p, IPFS, etc. Clearnet is ruined soiled cancer and you're a moron if you can't admit that to be the truth. I also seriously wish that mobile internet would have been it's own protocol with it's own set of networks. Normalizing the internet through smartphones has been disastrous on modern society. Things at least were more calm when you had to physically sit at a desktop and laptops were mostly used for work or school.
2 years ago
Anonymous
fingerprint access required. unless they cut their parents' fingers off they can't go online.
Black person, 99.9% of kids don't use the internet for educational purposes. They use it for moronic meme shit oer social media. The rare kid that uses it for educational purposes should be smart enough and have good enough parents that they will be still be able to find educational materials without stunting their mental growth.
Not true. I wouldn't have made it past high school if not for the internet (I never listened to the classes)
2 years ago
Goes in all field
I don't disbelieve you. I used the Internet primarily as a research tool all the way back to middle school, but we're the exception, not the rule. Most people are mindless fricking idiots that can't use the Internet outside of social media. Don't pretend that isn't fricking true, because I see it every fricking day with my homosexual ass roommates and their gay ass friends (that thank God, I don't see much).
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sure, but then the solution is making the access to internet harder, not impossible. And I mean harder in a way that it used to be before. Before you needed to know quite a bit about computers to set everything up. Of course, things changed with modern software and convenience programs, OSes got more advanced, etc.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also >Most people are mindless fricking idiots that can't use the Internet outside of social media
Have you seen the article that states that zoomers don't know what files and folders mean?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but we're the exception, not the rule
and why the frick would i change something that does immeasurable good to me because of what other people are doing how does that make any sense
Sure, but then the solution is making the access to internet harder, not impossible. And I mean harder in a way that it used to be before. Before you needed to know quite a bit about computers to set everything up. Of course, things changed with modern software and convenience programs, OSes got more advanced, etc.
your "solution" kills productivity
2 years ago
Goes in all field
Why should smart people who use it properly have to potentially suffer for the sake of wrangling dumb people? Are you also one of those people who think gifted programs harm equality?
I'm advocating for parents to do their fricking job and monitor what their kids look at on the Internet. The best thing a parent can do is make sure their kid is safe and not expecting the gov't to do their job. Same for the people in charge of kids in general. But we all know that isn't going to happen because most adults are also moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You cant make anyone do anything
2 years ago
Goes in all field
I understand that. I'm just sick of people complaining why society is so shit today when they aren't willing to even address one of the most fundamental reasons it's so broken. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem, as it is said.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I'm not like the other kids >Everyone but me is a mindless fricking idiot >I choose to live with people I dislike and then complain about them online
You sure you'd be allowed on the internet if it was restricted?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why does his post make you insecure? Did you feel like he was talking about you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>choose to live with people I dislike
you either live with people you dislike, live with nobody, or get tarred and feathered for trying to find people you like.
living with nobody fricks your head big time, getting #RESISTed for being honest isnt fun either, so here we are.
Why should smart people who use it properly have to potentially suffer for the sake of wrangling dumb people? Are you also one of those people who think gifted programs harm equality?
>21 >adult
way to out yourself as an underageded
no, moron, 21yos are just as dumb as 19 and 17's.
they havent left the education goyim cage, they have very little earning power irregardless of industry or training, are probably tied down in a shitty relationship with someone they hate because they dont want to be single. that's a 21 year old.
Amerimutts are shitty parents and need a big government to parent their kids for them. They can go frick themselves.
That this bill is from Texas doesn't surprise me at all because it's an entire state of clueless soccer moms that refuse to let their kids play outside alone, and park an iPad in front of the brats as soon as they come home so they can spend the evening getting wine drunk.
Even if this were a good idea in theory, it's even shittier in practice. You would either have a prompt "Are you 18? Yes/No" which obviously no one would ever click "No" on (basically what you have on porn sites and everyone knows how useful that is) or all the social media sites would demand a photo of your ID, which unless your brain has rotten away completely, is obviously a terrible idea (as it practically destroys any shred of anonymity you could have still had on these sites).
>one in five teens say instagram makes them feel worse >one in three teens say it makes them feel better >net good
without actually arguing whether social media is good or bad, the conclusion from that data is misleading and leads to the opposite of what they're advocating
Welcome to "every study published with any bill attached"
If you ever see a study with a bill, you can be safe in knowing that the data doesn't support whatever the bill says.
someone post that newspaper photo where they were worried that enormous share of 20% of homeless were women and we need to do something to help hecking womenrinos
who gives a shit what they say, we can clearly see the correlation between the explosive rise of social media and the explosive rise of body dysmorphia, depression and other mental disorders >only one in five teens says that daily cocaine use makes them feel worse
not 21 yet, but I support this, other people using social media, forces me to use it too, im 19, noone comes down to "PLAY",
> fricking convinced a girl to come play with me 2 weeks ago > go down 2 days with her, have really nice time, > play badminton, talk, laugh. > 3rd day, she doesnt show up, go to her place. > find out her mom doesnt want her to go with a guy. > she wont get out of the house for a week, but wont just come down with me for just an hour.
> convince 2 fat kids in my building to come down. > they say they can only come 1 day in a week because they come home at 4:30 and go to sleep at 10 because school.
> expand market and check out neighbouring buildings. > find out everyone has become fat fricks in 2 years of covid and getting jabs. > from total of 6 buildings, they play only 2 times on sunday(1 building in the morning, 1 in the evening.). small kids dont even come down cuz too busy on phone. > me gets so bored start talking with peaseant drivers and security guard. > right now come up and post on IQfy talking with peaseants again.
I think I should have been much more confident with the girl and tried to woo her, normally girls have broken up with me for being "too rough". so I tried to play it safe with her, and go a bit soft.
anyways. next story. > have hot cousin. > also be second girl, who told me she doesnt want to see me cuz im too confident. > is always on phone whnever we meet, posting pics with me and her on something called snapchat. > picks up and gets busy on phone whenver she gets shy.
about the first girl I think I should try a few of my manipulation tricks and see how it works out, I tried criticising her on chat, i knew she was insecure about talking to guys, so I tried subtly telling her that. she didnt seem amused.
now when I meet her next, im going to "force" her to come get icecream with me, so ill see how it goes, I think I like her, but mostly I just want someone to come down and play with me.
I remember before covid, everyone would come down at about 5 6 pm, how is it christian/homeschooled if I want someone to do something that was normal just a few years back, where are all the little kids who used to play downstairs?
if you are talking about the cousin thing, its normal where I live, im not christian.
>I think I should have been much more confident with the girl and tried to woo her, normally girls have broken up with me for being "too rough". so I tried to play it safe with her, and go a bit soft
that cat's out of the bag. banning it now will have no positive impact. everyone's already socially stunted >nobody does anything IRL for any reason other than photoops for social
China has no problem enforcing internet restrictions on kids. They can't even play Genshin Impact for more than 2 hours because their account gets locked.
yeah, i'm european
i don't know if facebook and the rest ever require you to do that when registering. doubt they will do anything beyond banning everyone under 18.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In Youtube's case, the EU required it, so a similar thing could happen for all other services
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the EU required it
The EU only required age gating adult content. Youtube took the opportunity to harvest IDs while conveniently blaming someone else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Soooo, is youtube ran by the glowies, or are the glowies ran by corporations?
I have a feeling it is one of these
This shit is just being pushed on the heels of the scotus rulings to ensure children have no escape from their parents' will and have nothing to do all day but read the bible. It's part of the plan to turn the country into a theocracy.
Oh God I can only hope this is true.
I was an atheist and I after this last decade I can well and truly say that Atheists are cringe and all the problems in society come from their "values" or lack there of.
What made you convert to moronation again?
Was it just a teenage rebellion against perceived lefty domination of media? Was it sexual insecurities? Too much focus on prevention of crime and rehabilitation over punishment in prisons?
Finally, thank goddess!
But in stead of "ban teens from antisocial media", could we enact "ban antisocial media" in stead and fix religious extremism, political extremism, conspiracy theories and the depression epidemic in one fell swoop.
Why do kids even have access to social media before they are college aged? Facebook was literally a means to connect students in Harvard(?) before it became a bhit. What the frick are teens doing that they need to show the world what they are doing? Why the frick are parents so lax about this shit? It wasn't like this even 20 years ago, when every adult warned you about using identifying info on the Internet in front of complete strangers. Are parents just that shit at raising their kids these days?
It starts with using iPad every time your kid wants attention. You want to do something else at that moment? Just put on some hyperstimulating YouTube videos and have your kid stare at them for an hour.
After that it is just downhill.
>tailored to their specific obsessions and anxieties
That's the part that really scares me. Tested and tuned and essentially made to push those dopamine buttons and fuel a literal addiction. Groom a nice crop of consooming button pushers that vote a certain way, socio-cultural cattle ranching.
>college aged?
Almost all social media have always been allowed for 13 years olds
So that was actually a law that came about when it was realized that there were no such restrictions in place. In times long past, the age of the majority of the youngest regularly on the internet were around college aged, because that was when most people got access to it on a large scale.
Yep, same thing boomer parents did with TV, but with infinite channels, no real filters, and tailored to their specific obsessions and anxieties.
Frightening to think what will happen to this generation's development.
Introducing: TikTok for 2 year olds!
It's really insane to think how bad most parents are and they don't even know it. Or worse, they know it and don't care. Raising a child is difficult, but it 's also something that requires an active investment on the part of the parent. I'm just glad there's many precedents to learn from when I have a child.
Honestly the grand parents of some kid i know let her touch her grandma's phone and its insane.
Pressing on all the Ads and installing all the apps is bad enough. > Never stops using it > Even at dinner time she wants to play with it on the table.
The one time i decided to try and take it away from her she ended up having a temper tantrum and the grandparents couldn't deal with it and just gave it back to her.
that looks like a normal distribution to me.. you will always have people at the extremes no matter the issue. i don't get how is that chart is supposed to support their stance
yes, that is what a moral panic is. When pearl clutchers start screeching about "mental health" or whatever other made up thing so they can take our freedoms away. People who use social media deserve whatever negative consequences happen to them, it's natural selection.
The c**tservative in me says "Do it!"
The lolbertarian in me says "If the parents don't care for their children, then why should I?"
I still think it's the parents' job to do this and there are many ways something like this could be circumvented
I'd love it if women were banned from Social Media though.
>ban women
I don't think we've even begun to explore the long term implications of modern tech, let alone created sustainable mechanisms to manage it. Ideas like marriage and sexual morality didn't spring up overnight, they were the product of thousands of years of experience, trial and error. Most normies don't appreciate the power of modern communication tech, and even less have any understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
>You will now need an ID to access websites and glowies and morons are cheering for it
I hate americans so much it's unreal. We have learned nothing from the patriot act after all
Social media is a shitshow and we absolutely need new privacy laws (as well as regulations on corporate bullshit that somehow is able to evade categorization because it happens on a computer. For instance, your 4th amendment protections shouldn't stop existing because the Internet/ "cloud" is involved etc), but of course this is nothing beneficial. Instead of going after the monopolies and those who usurp the public square with centralized private platforms etc..of course its another "for the children" style panic.
As a parent my child won't use the internet unsupervised ever as long as they live under my roof. Even if they are still with me as an adult. I'll even go as far as to monitor web traffic and set up restrictions such as blocking social media access, etc. I've already done this with my wife. She may get on social media like the idiot that she is, but at least she isn't doing it over our Wi-Fi and on her own stupid phone's data plan. Also my child won't be allowed to own a phone until their 13th birthday or special conditions such as a trip somewhere without us. Which I would get a privacy respecting phone that has a linux distro or at the very least root a decent mobile OS such as GrapheneOS or Lineage. Part of me is speculating that the smartphone/cell phone fad will die out by around 2028 in favor of a new wearable piece of tech for communication integrated with AR technology.
Big government with power over everyone is bad
Small government with power to break up the powers that giant multinational social media tech companies with power over everyone is bad
The running theme is monopoly power over everyone is bad, regardless of when the government is policing it, or if social media is policing it.
>being dominant is part of nature
"Its nature therefore good" fallacy. Nature didn't create clothes for us, yet we wear them. It didn't create computers, yet we use them. It didn't create our society/ethics/morals, yet we have them. It doesn't have rules, yet here we are.
Government's duty is to the people first and foremost. The freedom of the people is what the US gov was created for. Not suppression. Companies with power over billions of people is not in the interest of American people. Nor is it in the interest of the American people to have government tell every Americans what to think/do with their life.
Big corporates with large social impact need to be broken up. Big government policies with large social impact need to be broken up.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> ignoring something will make it go away.
too bad it doesnt work that way, eithier you revolt and set get a good goverment or stick with the current corpo owned goverment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>being dominant is part of nature
"Its nature therefore good" fallacy. Nature didn't create clothes for us, yet we wear them. It didn't create computers, yet we use them. It didn't create our society/ethics/morals, yet we have them. It doesn't have rules, yet here we are.
Government's duty is to the people first and foremost. The freedom of the people is what the US gov was created for. Not suppression. Companies with power over billions of people is not in the interest of American people. Nor is it in the interest of the American people to have government tell every Americans what to think/do with their life.
Big corporates with large social impact need to be broken up. Big government policies with large social impact need to be broken up.
being dominant is part of nature, so eithier you have a good democratic dominant goverment, or you have a 1984 dominant gov controlled by rich people.
When will you realize that there is no good government and the only way forward is libertarian anarcho capitalism?
2 years ago
Anonymous
> ignoring something will make it go away.
too bad it doesnt work that way, eithier you revolt and set get a good goverment or stick with the current corpo owned goverment.
Government that doesn't reach into personal/social life is the good one. If we can make change through revolt, then we can make change through vote.
Vote for less social governance and a government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t.
2 years ago
Anonymous
if a company has stocks, it is not a private company
2 years ago
Anonymous
Heh'd at meme, even though it's moronic to put big tech on it when big oil, conservative lobbyists, ethanol and tobacco industries all have much stronger effects on everyone's lives than all the big tech combined.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How so? And be as specific as you possibly can
2 years ago
Anonymous
Tobacco is old news but big corn and big oil can mobilize the armies
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gas sales are profit so that's why everyone has to own a car and you're stranded if you don't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t.
>Vote for less social governance and a government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance. >government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance
Are you actually a moron or did you just not read his comment?
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh wow, he said two contradictory things in the same breath, wowie i'm like so wrong about him and his opinions
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anarcho anything
does not and will never exist
an organization that governs over people is simply too efficient to be ignored
"the government" is merely a specific emergence of this concept, evolving from the tribal societies that came before
even if government itself gets swept out in the future, the core concept will exist so long as people are able to act independently of others
2 years ago
Anonymous
>we never had real capitalism!
2 years ago
Anonymous
This but unironically. How can you say we have capitalism when taxes exist, minimum wage exists, and USPS exists?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>capitalism is when taxation / permitting / regulatory capture / zoning laws / intellectual property monopolies / occupational licensing / welfare / minimum wage / fractional-reserve banking / anti-discrimination laws >capitalism is when the central bank prints infinite money, and the more money it prints, the more capitalistic it is
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes.
Adam Smith was not the laissez-faire cultist that you think he is, btw.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Adam Smith was not the laissez-faire cultist that you think he is, btw.
I do not think that nor did I say or imply that in my post. >Yes. >argument? uhh it just is mkay sweaty??
State intervention is antithetical to free market capitalism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>State intervention is antithetical to free market capitalism.
Free market capitalism is great for determining which graphics card or processor to buy.
Not so good when allowing kids and the dumb to poison themselves and the communities around them.
Restrictions from the state are sometimes a good thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Stop complaining, and enjoy the situation. You even looks like a communist-conservative-cuck-traditionalist-christian-utopian.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But what about the freedom? REEEEEE don't tread on me!
Break up social media giants and tech companies like apple/google/facebook/amazon, as well as business like VISA/MASTERCARD/etc. They control too much power over content moderation over other sites online.
This doesn't go far enough. Social media should be banned altogether. i.e. any technological system designed to collect personal information and inter-relationships for the purposes of profiling together with secret content recommendation algorithms
Profit isn't the problem, its the control that's the problem. The control over narrative, the control over people's social, professional, and personal life. Neither the government nor the private companies should have the sole power to re-shape the society through means of control, forced or otherwise.
Piggybacking telecommunication systems like this should not be accepted. For example, getting ads based on what you talked on the landline phone or your mail getting redirected should not be acceptable. Companies that behave this way should go out of business/become as fringe as a casino.
Just ban centralized internet alltogether. Only decentralized ones should be allowed and people would need to at least know how to port forward to connect with other people. This is the best way to get normies off the internet
Didn't texas want to force universities to teach in a "pro free market" way?
Well, I mean not literally texas, but the Texas GOP apparently wrote this in their secession manifesto
Only people against this are teens. The internet turns young boys into soulless coomers and girls into vapid prostitutes. Personally I'd simply ban smartphones for anyone under 18 though.
Good. The internet is the only place people will ue "logic" and "reason" to convince you that popular morals are "wrong" when the morals are JUST RIGHT and disgusting deviants are JUST FRICKING EVIL. We do not need children reading "arguments" from hedonistic, moronic extremists when all they need to know is that what everyone agrees is wrong is simply wrong and what everyone agrees is right is simply right. Children should NOT be isolated from the social dogma.
Tell me one negative thing about banning everyone under 18 from using the current internet? Give em a child's version with nothing but access to wiki and music/video streaming.
How is protecting kids from the harmful psychological effects of the internet a "moral panic"? Which degenerate website did you grab that headline from?
The Internet should not be regulated in any capacity.
That ship sailed long ago.
Under 18's shouldn't be on the internet period. That way Adults can enjoy an unregulated internet without worry about "but muh children".
And how will you prevent that? Hmmm?
Increase the difficulty for normies to use it. So only tech suave chads are the only kings of the web again.
Should we ban every non-terminal web browser?
I could live with that. Also, I suggest other avenues to explore such as tor, i2p, IPFS, etc. Clearnet is ruined soiled cancer and you're a moron if you can't admit that to be the truth. I also seriously wish that mobile internet would have been it's own protocol with it's own set of networks. Normalizing the internet through smartphones has been disastrous on modern society. Things at least were more calm when you had to physically sit at a desktop and laptops were mostly used for work or school.
fingerprint access required. unless they cut their parents' fingers off they can't go online.
they're here precisely because muh children argument can be used to censor
Theyre censoring the right things. I never drank the lolbert koolaid anyways.
who decides what's right? what if my and your perception of what is right differs? who's in the right then?
Me obviously
Children have no rights homosexual. If youre a child and you disagree you should get a smack on the head.
Since you *are* a child you should get a smack on the head.
No women wither, they get their own internet and are forbidden in man space.
True. But people should be regulated away from it until they are ready for it. No on e below 25 should ever be online, except for work
I don't care what excuse we need to keep children offline, but let's do it already.
was gonna say when did you start posting here but then i realized i wish i never started posting here
amen brother, save our fricking kids
For me, it's less about saving them and more about not having to engage with them. Imagine it.
Because why can't they suffer some if we had to suffer?
It's a parenting problem, not an Internet problem.
you're the "psychological harm"
>robbing kids of education during formative years
gj moron
Black person, 99.9% of kids don't use the internet for educational purposes. They use it for moronic meme shit oer social media. The rare kid that uses it for educational purposes should be smart enough and have good enough parents that they will be still be able to find educational materials without stunting their mental growth.
Not true. I wouldn't have made it past high school if not for the internet (I never listened to the classes)
I don't disbelieve you. I used the Internet primarily as a research tool all the way back to middle school, but we're the exception, not the rule. Most people are mindless fricking idiots that can't use the Internet outside of social media. Don't pretend that isn't fricking true, because I see it every fricking day with my homosexual ass roommates and their gay ass friends (that thank God, I don't see much).
Sure, but then the solution is making the access to internet harder, not impossible. And I mean harder in a way that it used to be before. Before you needed to know quite a bit about computers to set everything up. Of course, things changed with modern software and convenience programs, OSes got more advanced, etc.
Also
>Most people are mindless fricking idiots that can't use the Internet outside of social media
Have you seen the article that states that zoomers don't know what files and folders mean?
>but we're the exception, not the rule
and why the frick would i change something that does immeasurable good to me because of what other people are doing how does that make any sense
your "solution" kills productivity
I'm advocating for parents to do their fricking job and monitor what their kids look at on the Internet. The best thing a parent can do is make sure their kid is safe and not expecting the gov't to do their job. Same for the people in charge of kids in general. But we all know that isn't going to happen because most adults are also moronic.
You cant make anyone do anything
I understand that. I'm just sick of people complaining why society is so shit today when they aren't willing to even address one of the most fundamental reasons it's so broken. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem, as it is said.
>I'm not like the other kids
>Everyone but me is a mindless fricking idiot
>I choose to live with people I dislike and then complain about them online
You sure you'd be allowed on the internet if it was restricted?
Why does his post make you insecure? Did you feel like he was talking about you?
>choose to live with people I dislike
you either live with people you dislike, live with nobody, or get tarred and feathered for trying to find people you like.
living with nobody fricks your head big time, getting #RESISTed for being honest isnt fun either, so here we are.
Why should smart people who use it properly have to potentially suffer for the sake of wrangling dumb people? Are you also one of those people who think gifted programs harm equality?
>until the age of 21
robbing freaking ADULTS of education. can't have shit in detroit s m h.
>21
>adult
way to out yourself as an underageded
no, moron, 21yos are just as dumb as 19 and 17's.
they havent left the education goyim cage, they have very little earning power irregardless of industry or training, are probably tied down in a shitty relationship with someone they hate because they dont want to be single. that's a 21 year old.
way to out yourself as a moronic mutt
Amerimutts are shitty parents and need a big government to parent their kids for them. They can go frick themselves.
That this bill is from Texas doesn't surprise me at all because it's an entire state of clueless soccer moms that refuse to let their kids play outside alone, and park an iPad in front of the brats as soon as they come home so they can spend the evening getting wine drunk.
Even if this were a good idea in theory, it's even shittier in practice. You would either have a prompt "Are you 18? Yes/No" which obviously no one would ever click "No" on (basically what you have on porn sites and everyone knows how useful that is) or all the social media sites would demand a photo of your ID, which unless your brain has rotten away completely, is obviously a terrible idea (as it practically destroys any shred of anonymity you could have still had on these sites).
fpwp.
have a nice day Black person. it will never work.
>one in five teens say instagram makes them feel worse
>one in three teens say it makes them feel better
>net good
without actually arguing whether social media is good or bad, the conclusion from that data is misleading and leads to the opposite of what they're advocating
Welcome to "every study published with any bill attached"
If you ever see a study with a bill, you can be safe in knowing that the data doesn't support whatever the bill says.
someone post that newspaper photo where they were worried that enormous share of 20% of homeless were women and we need to do something to help hecking womenrinos
who gives a shit what they say, we can clearly see the correlation between the explosive rise of social media and the explosive rise of body dysmorphia, depression and other mental disorders
>only one in five teens says that daily cocaine use makes them feel worse
Feeling good by looking at something like instagram is also a bad thing
frickin a
one in five teen is ugly
>crackhead says smoking crack feels good
>this proves that crack is good
Kids should not have access to the internet until the age of 21
Fricking based. We actually need to keep social media away from the kids. Friends are out there, the real life happens our there.
Also they are just an easy to exploit group for advertising and political shilling of all sorts. Basically the cash cows of this fricked up industry.
>t. spent my youth in front of a computer
not 21 yet, but I support this, other people using social media, forces me to use it too, im 19, noone comes down to "PLAY",
> fricking convinced a girl to come play with me 2 weeks ago
> go down 2 days with her, have really nice time,
> play badminton, talk, laugh.
> 3rd day, she doesnt show up, go to her place.
> find out her mom doesnt want her to go with a guy.
> she wont get out of the house for a week, but wont just come down with me for just an hour.
> convince 2 fat kids in my building to come down.
> they say they can only come 1 day in a week because they come home at 4:30 and go to sleep at 10 because school.
> expand market and check out neighbouring buildings.
> find out everyone has become fat fricks in 2 years of covid and getting jabs.
> from total of 6 buildings, they play only 2 times on sunday(1 building in the morning, 1 in the evening.). small kids dont even come down cuz too busy on phone.
> me gets so bored start talking with peaseant drivers and security guard.
> right now come up and post on IQfy talking with peaseants again.
I think I should have been much more confident with the girl and tried to woo her, normally girls have broken up with me for being "too rough". so I tried to play it safe with her, and go a bit soft.
anyways. next story.
> have hot cousin.
> also be second girl, who told me she doesnt want to see me cuz im too confident.
> is always on phone whnever we meet, posting pics with me and her on something called snapchat.
> picks up and gets busy on phone whenver she gets shy.
about the first girl I think I should try a few of my manipulation tricks and see how it works out, I tried criticising her on chat, i knew she was insecure about talking to guys, so I tried subtly telling her that. she didnt seem amused.
now when I meet her next, im going to "force" her to come get icecream with me, so ill see how it goes, I think I like her, but mostly I just want someone to come down and play with me.
this is what people who think social media and the internet is bad actually believe:
this is some strict christian homeschooler shit. how do these people find IQfy
I remember before covid, everyone would come down at about 5 6 pm, how is it christian/homeschooled if I want someone to do something that was normal just a few years back, where are all the little kids who used to play downstairs?
if you are talking about the cousin thing, its normal where I live, im not christian.
for your sake i hope this is pasta
>19
Get off this site
I will once you ban me
You sound like a fricking grooner
What are you hiding?
>no u
Thought so.
> trying to talk to people is grooming.
>I think I should have been much more confident with the girl and tried to woo her, normally girls have broken up with me for being "too rough". so I tried to play it safe with her, and go a bit soft
lmfao
>i will the blood out of my rigid penis
if you want them to be unprepared for the world and be as educated as inbred farmers maybe
>Kids should not have access to the internet until the age of 21
Being 54 years old, I have no problem with this but the age limit ought to be 18, when one is legally an adult.
Nuke silicon valley
and tel aviv
that cat's out of the bag. banning it now will have no positive impact. everyone's already socially stunted
>nobody does anything IRL for any reason other than photoops for social
THIS. it'd solve most of our problems.
China has no problem enforcing internet restrictions on kids. They can't even play Genshin Impact for more than 2 hours because their account gets locked.
Based CN.
Cringe CN
Kind of pointless when the game is structured to provide heavily diminishing returns past 30-60 minutes of daily play.
if you already hit the endgame wall 100+ hours later. if you're a brand new player, 2 hours cant get anything done.
I first thought this would end up being good, then I realized they would all end up migrating over to IQfy.
>19% of children feel worse with instagram
>rest either no effect or better
>therefore the solution is to ban it
where is the logic here
they would just enter fake date of birth like many do today
unless they will check the photos, then it's over for them
Here in Europe you have to upload your ID/use a credit card for age restricted stuff (like some YT videos)
yeah, i'm european
i don't know if facebook and the rest ever require you to do that when registering. doubt they will do anything beyond banning everyone under 18.
In Youtube's case, the EU required it, so a similar thing could happen for all other services
>the EU required it
The EU only required age gating adult content. Youtube took the opportunity to harvest IDs while conveniently blaming someone else.
Soooo, is youtube ran by the glowies, or are the glowies ran by corporations?
I have a feeling it is one of these
This shit is just being pushed on the heels of the scotus rulings to ensure children have no escape from their parents' will and have nothing to do all day but read the bible. It's part of the plan to turn the country into a theocracy.
Seethe troon
Oh God I can only hope this is true.
I was an atheist and I after this last decade I can well and truly say that Atheists are cringe and all the problems in society come from their "values" or lack there of.
What made you convert to moronation again?
Was it just a teenage rebellion against perceived lefty domination of media? Was it sexual insecurities? Too much focus on prevention of crime and rehabilitation over punishment in prisons?
why stop at teens?
social media as well as a whole should be banned
That would include IQfy
>That would include IQfy
A sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Please God, let me leave.
Bong girls are the ugliest
>banning teens from social media
it worked for IQfy, right?
I wonder how many people started lurking here as teens
I sure did, even fricking moot did
Started as a preteen actually
Now I'm old
>Land of the free
A post like this looks like nothing other than ugly girl cope.
I wish I was a girl, ugly or not
god i love emiliko
Finally, thank goddess!
But in stead of "ban teens from antisocial media", could we enact "ban antisocial media" in stead and fix religious extremism, political extremism, conspiracy theories and the depression epidemic in one fell swoop.
Religious extremists don't even use social media. Except Woke Consumerists.
The radical athiest site reddit is one of the biggest websites
kek, while I'm generally against restrictions/censorship, social media has to go
Why do kids even have access to social media before they are college aged? Facebook was literally a means to connect students in Harvard(?) before it became a bhit. What the frick are teens doing that they need to show the world what they are doing? Why the frick are parents so lax about this shit? It wasn't like this even 20 years ago, when every adult warned you about using identifying info on the Internet in front of complete strangers. Are parents just that shit at raising their kids these days?
It starts with using iPad every time your kid wants attention. You want to do something else at that moment? Just put on some hyperstimulating YouTube videos and have your kid stare at them for an hour.
After that it is just downhill.
Yep, same thing boomer parents did with TV, but with infinite channels, no real filters, and tailored to their specific obsessions and anxieties.
Frightening to think what will happen to this generation's development.
Introducing: TikTok for 2 year olds!
>tailored to their specific obsessions and anxieties
That's the part that really scares me. Tested and tuned and essentially made to push those dopamine buttons and fuel a literal addiction. Groom a nice crop of consooming button pushers that vote a certain way, socio-cultural cattle ranching.
So that was actually a law that came about when it was realized that there were no such restrictions in place. In times long past, the age of the majority of the youngest regularly on the internet were around college aged, because that was when most people got access to it on a large scale.
It's really insane to think how bad most parents are and they don't even know it. Or worse, they know it and don't care. Raising a child is difficult, but it 's also something that requires an active investment on the part of the parent. I'm just glad there's many precedents to learn from when I have a child.
Honestly the grand parents of some kid i know let her touch her grandma's phone and its insane.
Pressing on all the Ads and installing all the apps is bad enough.
> Never stops using it
> Even at dinner time she wants to play with it on the table.
The one time i decided to try and take it away from her she ended up having a temper tantrum and the grandparents couldn't deal with it and just gave it back to her.
This. Being raised by TV fricked up my generation. It is going to be so much worse for those raised by iPads.
>college aged?
Almost all social media have always been allowed for 13 years olds
so the schlongberg can make more gorillions of dollarihnos how is this even a question
>Incel
that looks like a normal distribution to me.. you will always have people at the extremes no matter the issue. i don't get how is that chart is supposed to support their stance
>acknowledging that social media is specifically and deliberately optimised in ways that harm mental health
>"moral panic"
yes, that is what a moral panic is. When pearl clutchers start screeching about "mental health" or whatever other made up thing so they can take our freedoms away. People who use social media deserve whatever negative consequences happen to them, it's natural selection.
so you're saying facebook and twitter produce internal studies that are moral panics? weird
i don't know or care what "internal studies" facebook has done. Not my problem.
Those consequences extend well beyond people who use it.
That isn't needed. Just ask the site operators to require ID for registering accounts or browsing the site.
THANK FRICKING GOD I AM TIRED OF KIDS ON TWITTER COMPLAINING ABOUT EVERY FRICKING ANIME THAT COMES OUT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH BLACK PEOPLE.
The c**tservative in me says "Do it!"
The lolbertarian in me says "If the parents don't care for their children, then why should I?"
I still think it's the parents' job to do this and there are many ways something like this could be circumvented
I'd love it if women were banned from Social Media though.
>ban women
I don't think we've even begun to explore the long term implications of modern tech, let alone created sustainable mechanisms to manage it. Ideas like marriage and sexual morality didn't spring up overnight, they were the product of thousands of years of experience, trial and error. Most normies don't appreciate the power of modern communication tech, and even less have any understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
>youtube thumbnail shocked face
Because if social media turns other people's children into racists and you're an acceptable target, you'll be at their mercy one day.
>You will now need an ID to access websites and glowies and morons are cheering for it
I hate americans so much it's unreal. We have learned nothing from the patriot act after all
Not a moral panic, schizo.
would unironically make the next generation superior to the last few and I say that as a person who belongs to those last few
Social media is a shitshow and we absolutely need new privacy laws (as well as regulations on corporate bullshit that somehow is able to evade categorization because it happens on a computer. For instance, your 4th amendment protections shouldn't stop existing because the Internet/ "cloud" is involved etc), but of course this is nothing beneficial. Instead of going after the monopolies and those who usurp the public square with centralized private platforms etc..of course its another "for the children" style panic.
As a parent my child won't use the internet unsupervised ever as long as they live under my roof. Even if they are still with me as an adult. I'll even go as far as to monitor web traffic and set up restrictions such as blocking social media access, etc. I've already done this with my wife. She may get on social media like the idiot that she is, but at least she isn't doing it over our Wi-Fi and on her own stupid phone's data plan. Also my child won't be allowed to own a phone until their 13th birthday or special conditions such as a trip somewhere without us. Which I would get a privacy respecting phone that has a linux distro or at the very least root a decent mobile OS such as GrapheneOS or Lineage. Part of me is speculating that the smartphone/cell phone fad will die out by around 2028 in favor of a new wearable piece of tech for communication integrated with AR technology.
I'm all for banning children from the internet but how are you going to do it without requiring everyone to provide their ID for internet access?
It's called parents doing their fricking job!
It is not that complicated.
You simply restrict it.
Then you go to your kids and say: "Sorry forbidden."
The few kids who will do it anyway are not the problem. Because no advertiser can target a group that is not supposed to be there in the first place.
You see, it is not about individuals using the internet, it is about the implications for society.
So it will be like weed, illegal in theory, but in practice everyone would be doing it?
Why stop at social media? The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Baby steps I guess.
You know, banning them is actually a good thing
>Big government BAD
>Unless I agree with them, then big government GOOD
Nationalization when?
Big government with power over everyone is bad
Small government with power to break up the powers that giant multinational social media tech companies with power over everyone is bad
The running theme is monopoly power over everyone is bad, regardless of when the government is policing it, or if social media is policing it.
being dominant is part of nature, so eithier you have a good democratic dominant goverment, or you have a 1984 dominant gov controlled by rich people.
>being dominant is part of nature
"Its nature therefore good" fallacy. Nature didn't create clothes for us, yet we wear them. It didn't create computers, yet we use them. It didn't create our society/ethics/morals, yet we have them. It doesn't have rules, yet here we are.
Government's duty is to the people first and foremost. The freedom of the people is what the US gov was created for. Not suppression. Companies with power over billions of people is not in the interest of American people. Nor is it in the interest of the American people to have government tell every Americans what to think/do with their life.
Big corporates with large social impact need to be broken up. Big government policies with large social impact need to be broken up.
> ignoring something will make it go away.
too bad it doesnt work that way, eithier you revolt and set get a good goverment or stick with the current corpo owned goverment.
When will you realize that there is no good government and the only way forward is libertarian anarcho capitalism?
Government that doesn't reach into personal/social life is the good one. If we can make change through revolt, then we can make change through vote.
Vote for less social governance and a government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance.
>t.
if a company has stocks, it is not a private company
Heh'd at meme, even though it's moronic to put big tech on it when big oil, conservative lobbyists, ethanol and tobacco industries all have much stronger effects on everyone's lives than all the big tech combined.
How so? And be as specific as you possibly can
Tobacco is old news but big corn and big oil can mobilize the armies
Gas sales are profit so that's why everyone has to own a car and you're stranded if you don't.
>Vote for less social governance and a government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance.
>government with power to break up companies that seek social governance dominance
Are you actually a moron or did you just not read his comment?
oh wow, he said two contradictory things in the same breath, wowie i'm like so wrong about him and his opinions
>anarcho anything
does not and will never exist
an organization that governs over people is simply too efficient to be ignored
"the government" is merely a specific emergence of this concept, evolving from the tribal societies that came before
even if government itself gets swept out in the future, the core concept will exist so long as people are able to act independently of others
>we never had real capitalism!
This but unironically. How can you say we have capitalism when taxes exist, minimum wage exists, and USPS exists?
>capitalism is when taxation / permitting / regulatory capture / zoning laws / intellectual property monopolies / occupational licensing / welfare / minimum wage / fractional-reserve banking / anti-discrimination laws
>capitalism is when the central bank prints infinite money, and the more money it prints, the more capitalistic it is
Yes.
Adam Smith was not the laissez-faire cultist that you think he is, btw.
>Adam Smith was not the laissez-faire cultist that you think he is, btw.
I do not think that nor did I say or imply that in my post.
>Yes.
>argument? uhh it just is mkay sweaty??
State intervention is antithetical to free market capitalism.
>State intervention is antithetical to free market capitalism.
Free market capitalism is great for determining which graphics card or processor to buy.
Not so good when allowing kids and the dumb to poison themselves and the communities around them.
Restrictions from the state are sometimes a good thing.
Stop complaining, and enjoy the situation. You even looks like a communist-conservative-cuck-traditionalist-christian-utopian.
But what about the freedom? REEEEEE don't tread on me!
>aynclaps on IQfy
why am i even surprised
Break up social media giants and tech companies like apple/google/facebook/amazon, as well as business like VISA/MASTERCARD/etc. They control too much power over content moderation over other sites online.
Everyone gets that it wouldn't just be instagram/facebook/twitter affected by this, right? It'd end up being any site where people have discussions.
what's next?
youtube has been milked
facebook has been milked
tiktok has been milked
instagram has been milked
twitter has been milked
people will lose interest before any action will need to be taken in my opinion
Can we get them banned from here too?
This doesn't go far enough. Social media should be banned altogether. i.e. any technological system designed to collect personal information and inter-relationships for the purposes of profiling together with secret content recommendation algorithms
Profit isn't the problem, its the control that's the problem. The control over narrative, the control over people's social, professional, and personal life. Neither the government nor the private companies should have the sole power to re-shape the society through means of control, forced or otherwise.
Piggybacking telecommunication systems like this should not be accepted. For example, getting ads based on what you talked on the landline phone or your mail getting redirected should not be acceptable. Companies that behave this way should go out of business/become as fringe as a casino.
Just ban centralized internet alltogether. Only decentralized ones should be allowed and people would need to at least know how to port forward to connect with other people. This is the best way to get normies off the internet
>Texas
why am I not surprised?
Didn't texas want to force universities to teach in a "pro free market" way?
Well, I mean not literally texas, but the Texas GOP apparently wrote this in their secession manifesto
>"you must be 18 to register"
>instagram / Facebook kids edition!
I hate israelites
WE'RE TAKING SOCIETY BACK FROM LIZARD GLOBOHOMOS AND YOU CANT STOP US MOTHERFRICKERS
Republicans: the party of freedom
It should be banned from going to school.
>tfw you can report anyone who says fr for underage and the FBI will show up at their house and interrogate them for inproper social media access
Possibly the best thing that could ever happen to the internet,.
If they ban tinder im seriously going to consider moving to texas
good; stay there cuck.
I don't think you got him. He's saying that he wants to avoid cuckery by moving to a state that bans bawd apps.
I hope so much.
ITT: Everyone forgetting what parental controls are.
Only people against this are teens. The internet turns young boys into soulless coomers and girls into vapid prostitutes. Personally I'd simply ban smartphones for anyone under 18 though.
>Personally I'd simply ban smartphones for anyone under 18 though.
I second the motion!
Instead of banning kids from social media, they should just ban social media. Problem solved.
Good. The internet is the only place people will ue "logic" and "reason" to convince you that popular morals are "wrong" when the morals are JUST RIGHT and disgusting deviants are JUST FRICKING EVIL. We do not need children reading "arguments" from hedonistic, moronic extremists when all they need to know is that what everyone agrees is wrong is simply wrong and what everyone agrees is right is simply right. Children should NOT be isolated from the social dogma.
Welcome to IQfy please upload a photo of your driver's license to confirm your age and proceed.
do they still hand out free e-girls for new members?
Tell me one negative thing about banning everyone under 18 from using the current internet? Give em a child's version with nothing but access to wiki and music/video streaming.
So what ending are we headed towards bros, Helios, dark ages, or UNATCO
Social media was a mistake