• RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Traditional media aren’t associated with bullying and suicide risk. Social media are.

    Teens have always bullied, so it’s hardly a surprise or preventable on social media. It implies that the victim cannot escape from it though and at least leave it at school. So moving entry age to a level, bullying isn’t as bad is a good idea in my book.

    • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Well yes but those aren’t the only dangers are they? And not all social medias are equally problematic ; we’re better here than Facebook or so I like to believe. And life, in general, is filled with bullies.

      • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        No, bullying isn’t the only danger. Addiction is another and that’s just as bad here as for any other feed-based system. Legal addictive substances also have an entry age of at least 16, usually higher.

        • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Sure. Plenty of things are addictive as well. Games nowadays, sugar… they don’t get the hammer ban. Where’s everyone’s accountability when it takes the government to decide things for our kids? I for sure will support mine when they onboard social media - in the same way I’m trying to educate them of TV, Games, food, even music… That’s a parent’s job, not a government’s job in my opinion.

          • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Good default, I’m of the same opinion, in general. We should only restrict entry age if simple education isn’t enough - as can be seen by teen suicide rates rising in parallel with the spread of social media.

            Sugar isn’t restricted but alcohol and tobacco are. Why is that? Because there’s a difference in addictiveness and possible harm done.

            • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…

              • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                58 minutes ago

                I don’t know about addictiveness but sugar isn’t as harmful as alcohol, for example. Don’t get me wrong - in my opinion the negative effects of sugar aren’t taken seriously enough but they are far less pronounced and further down the road, while you can easily destroy your whole life in a year of alcoholism.