If you got to write legislation to "protect young people online" and it will be passed and enacted in good faith what, if anything, would you propose?
-
@futurebird@sauropods.win @DavyJones@c.im @dalias@hachyderm.io honestly, it doesn't fix it but you will hear countless examples of queer kids trapped in abusive homes only *surviving* because they did have unrestricted access to the internet. i might have killed myself as a teen without it, i've met many who say they would have like i said in another post, i'm more about educating kids and giving them the ability as a class to advocate for themselves and choose the risks that they want to take. u also need to take into account that children can hack things, they will get past things like "white lists"
@astronema @DavyJones @dalias @futurebird *raises hand* me too. I didn't have any internet friends, unfortunately. That would have really helped me.
I suspect the underlying motive behind the "kids on phones" moral panic is to isolate teens just like us so we die.
-
@futurebird@sauropods.win @DavyJones@c.im @dalias@hachyderm.io honestly, it doesn't fix it but you will hear countless examples of queer kids trapped in abusive homes only *surviving* because they did have unrestricted access to the internet. i might have killed myself as a teen without it, i've met many who say they would have like i said in another post, i'm more about educating kids and giving them the ability as a class to advocate for themselves and choose the risks that they want to take. u also need to take into account that children can hack things, they will get past things like "white lists"
"u also need to take into account that children can hack things, they will get past things like “white lists”
I should hope so. The point of such protections isn't to make it impossible, it's just a suggestion that it's not a curated space.
You'd be surprised how effective a simple "this site is for ages 18 and over" can be on people under that age. And if (and I'm thinking mostly about older teens here)
-
@astronema @DavyJones @dalias @futurebird *raises hand* me too. I didn't have any internet friends, unfortunately. That would have really helped me.
I suspect the underlying motive behind the "kids on phones" moral panic is to isolate teens just like us so we die.
@fluffykittycat @astronema @DavyJones @dalias
I also think it's important to have sex-ed content and age appropriate queer content that ISN'T behind such warnings because that's a kind of statment of acceptance. That isn't going to happen in a lot of communities but it among many things that aren't happening.
I don't think *not* having selected content at all is a good idea though.
-
If you got to write legislation to "protect young people online" and it will be passed and enacted in good faith what, if anything, would you propose?
@futurebird you know, we've been chewing on this and we don't have a good proposal yet
-
@futurebird you know, we've been chewing on this and we don't have a good proposal yet
I know what won't help, trying to age gate sites with IDs. It's nonsense and kind of tangental to the actual problems.
-
@guitargabe @futurebird If phones are distracting from your class, then mandate them be *put away and silent-except-emergency* during class. Don't take away kids' safety networks/lifelines/whatever because you're a mean adult who values your order over their safety.
If it's that much of an emergency, they can take the hit on their grade. The life lesson is that you actually should break the rules when it is warranted; and you actually should bare the consequences of breaking the rules when it is warranted. This "breaking the rules should have no consequences if it is warranted" meta is a psyop. -
If it's that much of an emergency, they can take the hit on their grade. The life lesson is that you actually should break the rules when it is warranted; and you actually should bare the consequences of breaking the rules when it is warranted. This "breaking the rules should have no consequences if it is warranted" meta is a psyop.
OK but the rule is that you can use a phone if it's an emergency. So it's not breaking the rules then?
-
OK but the rule is that you can use a phone if it's an emergency. So it's not breaking the rules then?
-
This is possible theoretically, but amounts to a recipe for 'emergency' creep in practice, since who decides if it was really an emergency or not. In order to be an actual object lesson, the stakes must be real.
IDK. I've had a kid pull out their phone in class and leave the room so I marked it down. But they came back later and explained they were waiting for a text from their parent about an important issue that I agreed was "an emergency"
They haven't done it again and really all of them generally they rarely break the rules in general.
-
This is possible theoretically, but amounts to a recipe for 'emergency' creep in practice, since who decides if it was really an emergency or not. In order to be an actual object lesson, the stakes must be real.
IDK if I think my students are jerking me around with technical excuses I will just say as much. The rules are to make the class enjoyable and educational. They don't have any intrinsic value beyond that.
If you have a family emergency and need to take a call. Take the call.
