Most in Germany want Australia-style social media ban: poll – DW – 11/30/2024
www.dw.com
A survey has shown that a majority in Germany would support banning social media use for those under 16. This week, Australian lawmakers approved legislation to that effect.

Summary

A YouGov poll revealed that 77% of Germans support banning social media for those under 16, similar to a new Australian law.

The survey found that 82% believe social media harms young people, citing harmful content and addiction.

In Australia, the law fines platforms up to AUD 49.5 million (€30.5M) for allowing under-16s to create accounts, with enforcement trials set before implementation next year. Critics

  • troed@fedia.io
    298·
    15 days ago

    Lots of people believe things not supported by science.

    News at 11.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.netEnglish
      261·
      15 days ago

      I mean science does show this generation has very high incidence of anxiety, depression, suicide etc. Not saying social media is all of it, but it’s probably a very big cause.

        • MacAnus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          101·
          14 days ago

          Let’s remember the ban in Australia concerns platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit and X. Exemptions will apply to services such as YouTube, messenger kids, whatsapp, kids helpline and google classroom.

          The account you provided starts by stating that “the most rigorous analysis” found little/no significant evidence , but fails to link to them. He immediately lumps together smartphone and social media, then goes on justifying the importance of both with arguments that clearly concern almost exclusively smartphones.

          This ban is about social media, not smartphones altogether.

          Garwboy’s arguments:

          • they let kids stay connected with friends, foster a community, allow coordination of activities: he’s talking about smartphones.

          • they allow access to school work, references, important resources: again, smartphones/the internet

          • they allow access to support, help and guidance from experienced and informed individuals and groups: this point I’ll give to him; as for years, Reddit has served that very purpose for me. Who knows what that site has become though.

          • he compares them to roads (roads kill children every year, but they save many lives, make the world go round,…): again this whole comparison is only valid for smartphones.

          • they are a refuge for children who experience abuse at home: this is probably true, but it is not an argument about how social media helps in these situations. I could say the same about drugs .

          Which brings us to my point of view: social media are, for many, a drug. A bit of it can be good, fun and even sometimes make your like better, but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion can have devastating effects in a person’s mental, especially when the mental is still in its forming stage.

          • troed@fedia.io
            27·
            14 days ago

            but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion […]

            I don’t do opinions. Burnett (a neuroscientist) has linked many sources - maybe you just need to read a bit more.

            Additionally, your claims about what’s “smartphones” and what’s “social media” are strange - my kids use Snapchat to communicate. Do you think they use SMS?? How old are your kids?

            • MacAnus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              5·
              14 days ago

              Look it’s my opinion from personal experience, just disregard it if it bothers you.

              I read the whole series of posts but didn’t see them, I guess I needed to search some more - my bad.

              I’m not saying social media doesn’t let you do all those things, I’m saying you don’t need it to do them.

              I don’t have kids and never used Snapchat, but what does Snapchat provide that helps them communicate better than let’s say WhatsApp?

              Edit: I went to dig on Burnett’s page for the links you tell me about. All I found was a radio interview of a doctor on radio Boston, an article from the Sunday times about Burnett’s book and an article on Wales online, also about the book.

              Could you link me to the relevant articles I must have missed?

              Edit 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7364393/ Found this article that combines different studies made on the subject. Around halfway through the page you will find the results of some of these studies and you will see the answer isn’t clear.

              • troed@fedia.io
                17·
                14 days ago

                I don’t have kids

                Yeah I think you should abstain from having opinions on what their generation is doing then. In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or shouldn’t do.

                The study you link says the exact same thing as Burnett does. It doesn’t support “social media is bad for kids”.

                edit:

                In all, the available meta-analytic evidence suggests that SNS use is weakly associated with higher levels of ill-being [14,17, 18, 19, 20] but also with higher levels of well-being [17,19], a result that suggests that ill-being is not simply the flip-side of well-being and vice versa, and that both outcomes should be investigated in their own right [11,39]. Finally, all meta-analyses reported considerable variability in the reported associations. For example, in the meta-analysis by Ivie et al. [14], the reported associations of SMU with depressive symptoms ranged from r = −.10 to r = +.33.

                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21001500

                • Not_mikey@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  3·
                  14 days ago

                  In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or should not do

                  I may not be a scientist but I know enough about history that any statement that says “in the whole of human history…” and doesn’t finish with death or taxes is bullshit.

                  Was the older generation wrong when they told there kids not to do crack when it started becoming popular in the 80s? granted I’m pretty against the war on drugs but even if we do fully legalize we should still keep it away from kids because:

                  1. It can be addictive and addiction and developing brains aren’t a good combination.
                  2. It is a major decision with positives and negatives that a child can’t fully understand

                  Both of those are true , albeit to a far lesser extent, for social media.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          34·
          14 days ago

          Yeah the level of scientific illiteracy in favor of self-righteous yammering was actually surprising for me to find on Lemmy. Who all upvoted that “probably” comment? smh.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.orgEnglish
      4·
      15 days ago

      And even worse: bad polling amplifies the interpretation the pollsters want to see.

      In this case, there’s no link to or mention of the actual question. Just the in favor/not in favor distribution.

      Did they ask “the government should implement laws to ban children” or did it say “rules to prevent children from signing up”?

      Did they mention the age limit? Asking any children and teenagers might lead to very different results.

      And so on. If you can’t find the exact question, polls like this are useless.

      • thallamabond@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        15 days ago

        Important thing about these laws is that they are for everybody. I would find it interesting if they asked, “Would you be willing to show your ID to go online?”. “Would you be okay with the government requiring you to show your ID to go on reddit?”