CSotD: Electric Dreamers
Skip to comments
The UK is joining Australia and several other nations in restricting Internet use by kids under16. The most common restrictions are on user-to-user platforms like Facebook, Snapchat and others, though this site provides more specific information on how various countries have set up their bans.
Clearly, Blower sees it as a performative act by PM Keir Starmer, whose shaky grip on the government has since been weakened by the election of Andy Burnham to a seat in Parliament.
Speaking from Australia, where such a ban is already in place, First Dog warns that kids will find a way around the restrictions, which is hardly a radical concept. Young people have regularly found their way around age limits on alcohol and tobacco, bans on marijuana and teachings about saving sex for marriage. It’s hard to picture an Internet restriction that they couldn’t surmount.
My kids were grown and gone by 2004, when Facebook debuted, but I’d already faced parental challenges over violent and sexually explicit TV and home video, and even then, they had friends whose parents set no limits. They could go to another kid’s house and watch all the gory, sexy stuff they wanted.
The best you can do is let them know your values, so they’ll know when they are crossing lines.
It was certainly easier in a mostly analog world in which there were restrictions on what broadcast television could show and how old you had to be to get into R-rated movies. But, again, you only had control over your corner of the world.
That has fallen to pieces. There was a time, O Best Beloved, when we advised people to set up their computer in the livingroom so they could keep an eye on what their kids were accessing.
Seems kind of quaint, doesn’t it?
First Dog suggests that many of the problems could be solved if the companies would enforce their own rules, practice effective moderation and ban offenders, but, as he has one of them say in the cartoon, that would cost money.
It would also require giving a damn. I reported a racist exchange that included a watermelon joke and in which Black people were referred to as chimps. Facebook responded that it did not violate their community values. Whether that reflects their actual values or just their willingness to moderate content makes no difference.
As for cost, the Trump administration is on record as opposing European digital controls because it would be burdensome to providers and would repress free speech, and forgive me if you were drinking hot coffee when you read that last part.
Moderation isn’t going to happen in an industry that depends on engagement, even pointless, toxic engagement.
And this isn’t just the latest advance for parents to fret over. Use of AI is shown to harm critical thinking skills, and seems likely to lead to a world of bland, one-size-fits-all intellectual mediocrity.
Canada is considering a set of youth restrictions, and offering parents guidance on how to adjust if the law passes, recognizing that 60% of Australian youth report getting online despite the law there that should restrict their access.
MacKay suggests that there is at least a great deal of inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, in contemplating a youth ban when adults are so heavily and willfully addicted themselves.
Banx echoes the idea that adults are imposing limits they don’t keep themselves, and points out both the example being offered kids, and the impossibility of keeping them from exposure.
Given that I began drinking in the eighth grade, it’s hard for me to argue that restrictions could be 100% effective, but, again, I would suggest that setting an example matters. I never saw my parents drunk, so I at least had models of responsible consumption.
Similarly, bringing your phone to the dinner table reveals more about your attitude on the subject than anything you might say in a lecture on the topic, and if you’re mindlessly playing Candy Crush while watching the Masked Singer, you have little to say about the wonderful things your kid should be doing instead.
I’m not saying you mustn’t do it, only that you can’t do it and ask your kids to behave differently. And maybe there are things you could all be doing, like having dinner together each night and going places on some weekends as a family, to a ball game, a museum or the beach.
That was a pretty good way to raise kids even before we had computers.
And whether or not you have kids to fret over, it doesn’t hurt to make an occasional self-evaluation of your own relationship to media. Joy of Tech suggests that, as we rely on AI to assist in our online existence, that existence becomes less and less meaningful and less and less about us.
I don’t think you necessarily need AI to fall into bad, pointless ruts. It might save you time to have AI set up to post pictures of your dinner every night, but nobody cares what you ate, however it’s posted.
GIGO — Garbage In, Garbage Out — was one of the early expressions in the online world, and if it isn’t said so often, it’s because it’s become the default setting.
I assume “30 minutes” falls under the category of comic exaggeration, but 45 seconds would have been perfectly adequate. I limit myself to about 1000 words each day, which the website heading says take a minute or two to read, and I know there are plenty of people who skim through the cartoons without reading the commentary.
We used to say TLDNR but now it’s TL/DR because that N was just taking up too much space and time.
In any case, Arlo is right that your time is worth something, and curating your feed should be critical. One nice thing about Facebook is that, in addition to blocking, they give you the option of snoozing someone for 30 days and unfollowing without unfriending. Use’em all.
And make time for things that matter.
For further information, listen to Don’t Crush That Dwarf; Hand Me The Pliers, which ends much like Noth’s cartoon.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 2