Telling somebody to simply not participate in society is not the solution. Creating a better society is.

But it's easier to just tell women to go away or to stop wearing sexy clothing.

Yeah. I have a feeling that stopping it is, somehow, not desirable to a portion of the commentors.

It isn't really that easy to monitor or control one's children's use of the internet. They're smart and can be good at figuring out ways to get what they want; more so as they get older. It's better to stay aware of what they're likely exposed to, and talk to them and prepare them to recognize harmful things and avoid them.

This is the most persuasive argument for restricting social media to adult use only that I've ever heard. Can't even imagine how damaging this kind of shit is do a developing mind.

Edit: some places have restricted it to age 16, great- but honestly 18+ would be ideal

Some thoughts:

1. Social media encourages a herd mentality.
2. Social media can distract you from learning and focusing.
3. Social media can feed you disinformation or subject you to bullying.
4. This applies doubly for algorithmically steered social media (where information gets pushed at you without your request).
5. Algorithmic social media is good at getting engagement (conflict: just another form of engagement).

This is being done to earn someone profit, not to inform people but maybe entertain them a bit - but foremost, because someone buys advertisements on these platforms.

Courses of action:

• deal with the users? (carrot or stick?)
• deal with the companies?

Viability of different courses:

• Users are diverse and numerous. Dealing with them is a lot of work.

• The actions of malicious users may be an offense in some place, but not in another, and being rude is not an offense. Dealing with malicious users individually is feasible only in an environment where the general public is interested in peace of mind and orderly discussion. I have seen and still participate in such places. They are mostly non-profit forums wich a few clear administrators. Lemmy is an experiment in a similar direction. An algorithmically steered social media site run by a for-profit company... no, it does not fit this profile.

• Education of non-malicious users - how to choose a good environment and defend oneself and others in this environment - may be more effective. Users should be informed about what benefits them. They should know that "environment A has effective moderation, while environment B is a troll cave". They should know that "environemnt A sends you information that you asked, while B pelts you with rage bait". Who should educate people about the environments they can choose? Obviously, schools.

• Very large companies have to comply with EU DSA rules. They must show how they have effective moderation, prevent hateful content from propagating, are not harming minors, etc. I would prefer if all large companies were pressed towards effective moderation. It hurts their profit margin, but they must accept this is the price to pay for operating in a civilized society.

• A particularly blunt instrument, recently touted in several countries, is outright banning of all underage people from social media. This is highly controversial. To the companies it sends a message: "if you cannot create a safe environment, we will take your future customers away, full stop". To others, it causes great inconvenience due to age verification, which is problematic. If age verification is in place, using social media for publishing something pseudonymously or anonymously becomes near impossible. I would not like that to happen.

The age verification debate misses the real point. These commercial algorithms are harmful for everybody.

should be looked at to be regulated the same way gambling and addictive drugs are.

Yet here we are, still in the War on Drugs. Betting apps are exploding in popularity and being straight up paraded by politicians and business leaders.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don’t think the engagement feedback issue will be addressed directly. It’s too profitable. We’re cooked, for a while. So maybe we should reach for every half measure with a chance of passing, like restricting kids?

Gestures at Lemmy comments in this post. See what I mean?

The extent of apps promoting and amplifying this hate posting is a recent phenomenon, through the so-called algorithmic feeds. It all needs attacking.

Woman: I keep getting catcalled on the street and it’s disturbing my sense of safety.

OpenStars: stop going outside, easy.

Knowing that these sites are bad and the algorithm is part of that doesn’t make “just don’t use those sites” a viable option when most or all of someone’s peers are also using them. That is part of the social media companies’ strategy, to make switching costs so high no one leaves.

Paywalled :(

Yeah, "just stop using social media" is an insanely stupid take that misses the point so hard it makes you wonder how someone distorted their perception so hard that they can even react that way.

people who think “If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide."

I think these people should live in a world without bathroom doors.

Why would Facebook want to have less users?

I mean this is why I stopped using social media 10 years ago. Bunch of nonsense drivel, everyday.

I'm not victim blaming, this shit shouldn't happen, but if you are on a platform and that platform has shit moderation and you keep seeing content you don't like, well, maybe you should leave that platform? I mean this is why we all left reddit, right?

If I walk into a wall once, then it's an accident. If I keep walking into it, then I'm just stupid.

It wouldn't. That's why have to ask politicians to make laws that forces Facebook to do it anyway.

How much do you think it'd cost to 'police the platforms'?

School is not about socialization. Socialization absolutely happens there, but it's not the primary purpose, and it does not exclude predatory adults. See: the rampant rates of bullying and violence that occur, and get further enabled by faculty who either ignore complaints or both-sides it into victim-blaming.

Kids are not just naturally nice to one-another.Lord of the Flies is still taught in schools for a reason.

No. All walls should be padded because we assume everyone is going to walk into them...

We gotta stop this Lemmy from forcing her to do all that

Systematic issues aren't any one person's responsibility, and those who thing it is, tend to be violent assholes.

All we can do as individuals is be responsible for ourselves. We are not responsible for other people.

However, the parents are responsible for this 15 year old girl. She is not responsible for herself as she is not an adult.

Can't you limit your posts to just people that you know somehow?

Opening everything up to the whole world is bound to attract the worst. And, apparently, you have to read all the replies

lemmy is only took off because reddit policed it and kicked most of the users here off.

the problem with policing speech and bullying is it's totally subjective. i used to be told I was a bully for offering people writing suggestions.

I'm constantly baffled by the amont of misogyny some Lemmy users through around if the topic is even slightly about women.

I went into a bar and there were people drinking alcohol. I went to Lemmy forums and had a nice time. No one told the author that the environment influences the behavior? Has someone convinced the author these platforms aren't predatory in LITERALLY every single way? Culture fail. Corporate win.

No, but it’s still a more isolated environment. There aren’t bunch of ads or grifters or whatever on campus because it at least tries to insulate kids from the outside world profiting off them, and to curate what they experience.

That’s what they need on their phones, too. Lord of the Flies is better than Big Brother.

I guess the difficult part would be to blunt the outside from flooding in, like kids mass reposting Andrew Tate. But at least there would be some control/fairness with exposure, instead of an engagement algorithm ruling their feed.

Lol you get downv0t but you basically hit it on the dot here

These platforms are built on letting everyone interact with everyone because it drives usage and makes them so much fucking munn-ayh

Government can never ever justify the funds necessary to pay people to oversee all these conversations (and then what?)

The only solution is to choose for platforms that forego max profit

I have been online since the 90s in mostly gaming spaces. Misogyny and racism feels like the default state.

Spaces that are able to rise out of that are exceptional.

The identity verification debate is the point and it is the only reason this article exists in the first place.

These commercial algorithms are harmful for everybody.

Also true.

Top three read article btw. Shilled by the same people who will soon have a track of you everywhere you do or go. You won't even have a permission to fart without paying the fine.

15- y old girl. Most likely written by a 40 y old who can't understand how parenting works. If you are a failure it doesn't mean the rest of population now needs to be enforced in id links and checks and give away their right to privacy. Fucking dumbasses

a large share of “incel adjacent” shut-ins, as they are the segment most likely to keep a forum or website active

"But not me, I'm different even though I'm here too!"

This user:

How do you propose stopping it?

The people who propose "age gating" social media are essentially advocating the end of Internet anonymity and privacy for us all. After all, you can't effectively determine one users age or identity without collecting them all.

Is removing digital privacy really something we want to be flirting with? Especially in the era of Palantir, Flock, and the Trump Administration?

Democracy, freedom of speech, and privacy are all related.

Without privacy, one can't have freedom of speech because bad actors and authoritarians in power can and will silence critics. Without freedom of speech, one can't live in a democracy, because having the ability to organize and speak out against those in power without fear of persecution is the basis of democracy.

Maybe I'm just more cynical than most, but I don't see the elimination of all privacy on the Internet as a good solution for something that can otherwise be managed by basic parenting and personal agency.

We are fools if we willingly give the corporate oligarchs that control mainstream social media (and, by extension, Trump) our full real identities in a futile attempt to "think about the children".

As the others have stated, you don't need to know them to ban them, but i would also add that a majority post from their real accounts, with their face as a profile picture, with little to no shame.

Outside of this, there needs to be a targeted effort to label and/or ban bots, but those bot accounts drive up user engagement numbers, which drive ad revenue, which makes line go up, so it's never going to happen. But doing so would limit how far these messages get and reduce foreign (or domestic) influence.

Abhorrent to hear such a young person having to deal with this. It gets easier as you grow older, but it never stops being a vile state of things. Nobody should have to grow 'thick skin' to just participate, as wonderful aspects of their personality can die with it.

The gut reaction is to point to the easy and straightforward option, to just leave. But in the end this doesn't solve anything. This is exactly how many safe spaces die, on top of it blaming victims. Once abusers are let in and tolerated, the victims will start leaving if they can. And eventually, the space is no longer that of the victims, but that of the abusers. This happens with nazis at a bar, smokers at restaurants, assholes on the road, unruly people in the train. It leads to a society where everyone nice just sits at home because that's ultimately the last safe place left.

The hard truth is that the group that doesn't take a stand and accepts in the abusers, is the only place we can look at for a solution. But there's no easy way to get to them often. If they let it get this far, it's essentially pointless. (The big social media platforms for sure). I think the only real alternative is to build alternative safe places. Reach out to friends and other victims. Let them know there is another place where they can actually feel safe. But it will be hard and grueling. At first it might seem like you are alone, that nobody shares your grievances. But it takes time. Years even. You might get assholes trying to get in anyways, that have to be harshly rejected to keep the spirit alive. You might get sabotaged from outside. It's tough - but as far as solutions go, it's a real one.

I consider Lemmy one of these places. And I think it's very important for anyone to realize they're in a community built on those grounds. It must always be protected with full force. From the smallest friend group, to the biggest of governments. Even when that's hard to do.

Is it just me, or does it feel out of place that the author described herself as "a 15-year-old schoolgirl"? I don't think I've ever even heard that term outside of porn, and you wouldn't describe her counterparts as a "schoolboy".

educating men and boys, and actually moderating misogyny (and other bigotries) would be a good start, how many reports of horrific posts end up with "after careful examination by our moderation team, we have found that this post does not violate our community guidelines..."

I've been a social media moderator and it's an awful, thankless, volunteer job. And I think objectively we kept our community very tightly focused on our narrow topic and civil. But we'd have never gotten to that point without a ton of help from the community itself. We outlined our vision and had clear, reasonable guidelines, so it was very easy to determine if something was against the rules to report.

But this was a special interest subreddit, and it was a constant battle. I made sure that every ruling and interaction I made had thoughtful intent. I had to step down because it was making me legitimately depressed.

I could never fault a moderator for being overwhelmed, especially for a community as chaotic as instagram. For these large, general purpose communities, it's impossible to police directly. It truly takes the whole community to enforce and report bad behavior.

So no, you shouldn't blame the victims, but you have to understand it's a massive systemic problem with no easy solution. The best advice you can give really is "Take care of yourself, and avoid problematic communities."

Woman: I keep getting catcalled on the street and it’s disturbing my sense of safety.

OpenStars: stop going outside, easy.

False equivalency. Going outside is not similar to using Instagram.

This isn’t realistic to tell a kid who uses social media, it’s like saying “Don’t play Xbox” or “Don’t watch new releases, only watch stuff that’s out on video already”

Do these kids just not have parents or adult guardians?

Okay, so tell that to the parents. It is their responsibility.

Facebook has a certain level of moderation, as is required by a lot of countries.

But they're never going to, for example, screen every comment before it gets posted. And politicians basically banning Facebook don't get many votes

Also, I don't personally use it but isn't Facebook one where you'll only get comments from people you've first connected with?

Hell the worst shit you see on Facebook is by people posting under their actual name.

I don't think telling women and girls to stay off social media is going to fix the issue. She also talks about this kind of language and views being parroted in real life. You can tell your kids to stay off social media but that doesn't mean they're going to be immune from this if other people don't do the same. The bigger problem is boys are being radicalised online, and no one is coming down on social media platforms that profit off of this happening.