France's top court blocks social media ban for under-15s

Companies like epic and Microsoft dont. The easy path is just a default install

I suspect this is by design.

If you want kids to not access social networks, you need to have most of them out. If only a minority is out, they will just be outcast.

That said, "everybody must do that thing that Apple does" may be a very good example of good regulation. IDK what Apple does, though.

It’s a good thing MPs are serious people and Parliament would never do that, right? :)

An interesting twist to UK constitutional jurisprudence is that until relatively recently the House of Lords was the highest court. In fact, the very origin of Parliament was as a court. The devolution of legislative and judicial (and executive) powers from the king had always been intertwined. So contrasting constitutional judicial review between the US and UK by gesturing at the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy didn't necessarily prove anything as the House of Lords was, in a sense, Parliament. (This was often a rebuttal for when people brought up the Principle of Legality as contradicting Parliamentary Supremacy, or otherwise interjected in discussions of judicial review in the UK.) Now that the highest court is independent, the next 100 years of constitutional jurisprudence in the UK should prove interesting.

But yeah, smoking is on the rise. I'm a youngish person and whenever I go out and meet others, it's quite rare for someone to turn down a cig.

Not if you must ID before accessing information on the world wide web.

Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?)

And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?

The form you use is part of expression.

Engagement maximizing is a buzzword that translates to content people are interested in viewing. Why would you want to regulate content to be uninteresting? I can't see that benefiting anyone.

The problem in these discussions is that radicalize is an overloaded term. It could mean convincing someone of your non-mainstream political view, or it could mean inspiring someone to commit an act of terror. The former seems perfectly fine to me and well within freedom of speech and association.

Those who say how can I tell my child they can't have what others in school have. Then yoi are letting other parents raise your child.

> We don't allow arsenic in bread

I'm curious what work the verbiage of "safety" is doing throughout these posts. It's particularly interesting to me because I'd also like to consign things like infinite scrolling and adversarial algorithmic recommendations to the dustbin of history. I'm simply not sure how we describe this as being a question of "safety" in any appreciable sense, much less compare looking at things to eating things. That's really not a useful analogy here.

In the future the state will raise children giving all children an equal chance of a good future. Poor children are less likely to get into good schools and careers where rich families can buy a better future.

Think of the children.

You ignored three of my points:

1. These platforms are highly addictive, and designed to be highly addictive. Just because these are digital services doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't be regulated like, say, addictive substances.

2. Many parents are themselves addicted and don't understand the harms or choose to ignore them. There are numerous areas where society decides that regulation is appropriate because a product or service is so detrimental and/or being offered predatorily.

3. Even children who don't use social media can be harmed by these platforms. Very few people want to acknowledge that these platforms are being abused in ways that allow users to cause immense harm to non-users.

> It's also a much less restrictive option than forcing EVERYONE to give up their privacy.

You already have no privacy online and these social platforms are among the biggest privacy violators. Why do so many people pretend this isn't the case?

Facebook, for instance, has "shadow profiles" of non-users created based on the collection of data from tracking tools (like Meta Pixel) that the vast majority of people don't even know exist. If you're pro-privacy, would you support laws that ban companies from doing this?

You should read up on the work of Dan Olweus.

You do not need to be present for aggressive behavior directed at you to be considered a form of bullying.

Things like spreading rumors, turning friends and acquaintances against you, and deliberate exclusion can all meet the definition of "bullying" and they don't require you to be in the room.