Look, I’m all for not letting children into social media apps. But that’s the job of the parents, not the state.
Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone.
Why is the state always meddling with the citizens lives and personal responsibilities, and why do we let them? Do we really appreciate so much this nanny state?
I don't think you've thought through the sentiment "But that’s the job of the parents, not the state" very well. Parents frequently want limited Internet access for their older preteen/early teen children, don't trust the private sector to implement this limited Internet access, and don't have the time to enforce this limited access themselves as they have to go to work and their children have to go to school anyway (and their parents want this limited access for them in school as well).
There are also easier options of no personal Internet access, and unrestricted access, but I suppose these are not very good for this stage of development.
As citizens we like to delegate aspects of our lives to the government; for example, I'm responsible for commuting to work on time, but we have delegated the maintenance of roads or public transport to the government, and this is something that could also be done by the private sector (private roads, private transportation), and ends up as a constant negotiation between citizen and government. Some polities like Germany and I think Sweden have subsidized education for children in exchange for mandatory public schooling by an institution either owned by the state or extremely highly regulated by the state.
Yes. That's what nature does. You are of course free to help them with your personal resources.
> And the state is currently pushing social media onto kids and parents, should it maybe stop doing that, at least?
When did the state have the right to 'push' social media to start with? Do you need a law for everything that can potentially go wrong? How about a generic 'do no harm' law? (I must note that social media can be avoided by most people at this point but I digress.)
> What do you want to do with kids who happen to be born to incompetent parents? Do they deserve to just have fucked lives?
Yes. Unless you and other people that think like you go there and help them with your own time and your own personal resources.
My children shouldn’t have their parents time and money stolen by the state to give to children who’s parents don’t care enough to properly provide for them.
> Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone
Those people haven't bothered looking into the details. Some jurisdictions require age checks in a way that deanonymize people, and some require they be done in a way that do not deanonymize people.
The EU is strongly pushing for the later in the systems EU countries are adopting or considering.
>But that’s the job of the parents, not the state.
How? I can't hover over the shoulders of my kids 24/7 - there's no world in which that's practical.
Maybe tech companies should start offering parents tools to make it easier? The same tools that people here might already use to keep that bullshit away from their kids.
C’mon. We don’t need to go to extremes. I accept that sometimes my child will be able to access content not previously vouched by me. It’s ok, as long as it is a short amount of time.
You can control them at home and you can control their mobile phones. You can also expect the school to control their computers there. The remaining time will be a very short amount of interactions and I think we can healthily live with that.
Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone.
Why is the state always meddling with the citizens lives and personal responsibilities, and why do we let them? Do we really appreciate so much this nanny state?