Login
You're viewing the front-end.social public feed.
  • ptoothfish (but beige)ptoothfish@beige.party
    Jun 15, 2026, 7:57 AM

    “gIvE kIdS tHeIr cHiLdHoOd BaCk”

    so… you mean fund recreation centres and out of school activities? NO

    sports clubs and increasingly walkable cities? HAHA NO

    playgrounds, green spaces, skate parks, libraries, any non-commercial spaces where kids don’t have to pay to exist? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

    oh… enforce realistic safety standards for urban SUVs and light trucks? WHAT HAS THAT EVEN GOT TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF EGGS?

    so how exactly does one give kids their childhood back? BAN SNAPCHAT TIKTOK AND INSTAGRAM

    oh… what about 4chan or stormfront or kiwifarms? DON’T BE OBTUSE WE CAN’T BAN THOSE HOW WOULD THAT EVEN WORK??!?

    💬 6🔄 67⭐ 6

Replies

  • SupermoosieSuperMoosie@mastodon.au
    Jun 15, 2026, 8:57 AM

    @ptoothfish

    And the kids that have made friends from all over the world on social media,because people don't care if they are disabled, or what they look like. Unlike the kids that bully them at school.

    Us introverts, who found it hard to talk to people, but thrive with a keyboard and that extra time to create the right sentences?

    Or the rural kids, that don't have friends nearby?

    Or the kids that have family overseas or far away, that they were keeping in touch with via social media?

    Or kids that get information in their native language and follow events in their home countries.

    The kids running businesses on social media, gaining life skills?

    Or the kids following their heros, gaining information, having mental health and other medical organisations they can easily reach out to?

    Kids taking leadership and running environmental, social, volunteer groups, promoting their bands, running events, and coaching others?

    Adults making decisions have no idea how kids use social media, let alone how it benifits or harms them.

    The Australian u16 ban was pushed by an advertising company and 32 global brands.

    Did not care about kids, just wanted them back watching tv and radio, so they could consume advertising they controled.

    They also owned AI age verification software to sell.

    crikey.com.au/2025/12/09/36-mo

    💬 0🔄 18⭐ 19
  • Grumble 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇱grumble209@kolektiva.social
    Jun 15, 2026, 9:00 AM

    @ptoothfish

    It makes an incredulous old bastard like myself suspect that this really isn't about nurturing and protecting children at all.

    If I was cynical, I'd say that Zuck and Meta and Microsoft want to know exactly who's clicking so they can charge more for targeted advertising and that local, state, and federal cops want even more specific results to their subpoenas.

    💬 1🔄 5⭐ 13
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • MidgePhotoPhoto55@mastodon.social
    Jun 15, 2026, 9:40 AM

    @ptoothfish
    Also whatever children1 didn't have, and whatever is to be thrust upon children2, will be affecting different children.
    If there were notional children0 they grew up into world1 not into the world3 that children2 are heading towards.

    And world3 already seems to have substantial differences from previous ones.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Mumu@mastodon.nz
    Jun 15, 2026, 10:24 AM

    @ptoothfish I dunno man, Facebook Twitter and so on are pretty toxic companies, I don't hate exposing less people to those assholes.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Raglan Niall :lk: :tinoflag:Niall@mastodon.nz
    Jun 15, 2026, 10:56 AM

    @mu Me too. Rather than banning kids, instead if we made the social media companies responsible for cleaning themselves up then all ages would be saved the toxic behaviour of the vocal few on these platforms. @ptoothfish

    💬 0🔄 2⭐ 7
  • RantingCanuckRantingCanuck@mstdn.ca
    Jun 15, 2026, 12:21 PM

    @Niall @mu @ptoothfish

    We can never trust the social media companies to clean themselves up, they will always do everything in their power to be evil.

    Thus we need actual regulations:

    1) Mandate that all content algorithms must be published, making them subject to independent review

    2) Hold social media companies legally responsible for the content pushed by their algorithms by removing the safe harbour provisions so many countries enacted in the early days of the internet. Those provisions shield social media companies from liability for the content their algorithms push. Any content pushed by an algorithm should be considered published by the social media company and it should be held fully liable.

    💬 0🔄 3⭐ 0
  • The Penguin of Eviletchedpixels@mastodon.social
    Jun 15, 2026, 2:58 PM

    @mu @ptoothfish Yes and they know it, but they and their political tools are pushing age limits because they don't want laws passed to make social media safe for people as it would damage their revenue.
    It's the cigarette company "it's ok if its a dangerous addictive drug and you just ban children using it" trick, and I'd like to say the politicians fell for it, but they are so in bed with the techbros in the UK that they are probably totally aware of the script.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 2
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 1