zlacker

>>Shamar+(OP)
It's good to see that many countries are working on lesiglation to protect children and teens against this, since the companies clearly aren't trying.

>>sagaci+77
The problem is when government's solutions go through identifying everyone and collaterally tracking their actions.

In the same way parents can be blamed for not keeping their children safe around guns/alcohol/drugs, they should also be blamed for not keeping the children out of digital dangers, and keep mandatory age verifications out of here.

>>uniq7+4c
This is like saying parents are at fault when a gun salesman sells a weapon to their 12 year old.

>>sagaci+zf
More like saying parents are at fault when a gun salesman enters their home every day, talks for hours with their children, and sells them weapons.

Have these parents tried to not let the salesman in?

>>uniq7+tl
The salesman is at their friends place. And is a prerequisite for soccer team meetups. Etc. You need most parents to cooperate to bar him... but yeah I guess being prudent at home helps.

>>rightb+hu
I totally understand that "the salesman" is everywhere and that a single person can't fight against that, but he is everywhere because most parents are not blocking him in the first place, and that's exactly my point. Those are the parents that need to be blamed.

In my first message I was not targeting those parents who try to block this but can't; I was targeting those parents that use Youtube to distract their kids since they are babies, those who give unrestricted access with no control at all, those who don't care. We all know people like that.

This is just an hypothesis, but if parents were fined every time their kid accessed social media, I'm sure most kids wouldn't be on it.