I agree on most things but I feel this is genuinely different. Previously, to access particular material, you had to buy something physical (magazine etc) so if the shop allowed you to do so, they got punished. SM allows all of this extreme content with next-to-no accountability for platforming it
So you mean like how 4chan, LiveLeak, porn, ratemypoo, lemon party, etc have been since the dawn of the internet? What century are you living in?
Exactly, which is why this legislation should have been rolled out 20yrs ago.
Did the millennials and gen X to become the new monsters of society?
The problem is that SM is the modern town square, not a shop. So you're now no longer talking about policing a store, you're talking about the morality police deciding what people are allowed to discuss. Should there be limits? Probably. Is limiting speech potentially dangerous? Absolutely.
I'd disagree there, SM is a product. If, in a town hall, someone was showing footage of, say, violent porn, or extreme violence, they would be ejected and likely have a police experience for a public disorder offence. It should be the same online.
SM is a town square, the product are the adverts plastered up round it. The mistake people make is in thinking the content is the product. It's not, although there is the perverse incentive to encourage people toward more outrageous acts and rubbernecking to keep people in the square.
People could already call the police in over extremist content on SM. But now imagine a town square with police on every corner, and you get carded on entry. Might stifle discussion a bit. Maybe the public never get to decide if that statue was acceptable or not, because its now decided for them.
I think the crux of the issue isnt even to do with content, its an argument between those who fundamentally believe people at the top should decide the rules, and the people at the bottom follow, and those that think those at the top should endeavour to merely reflect the views of those underneath.
I think I've lost what I was saying now, suffice to say its complicated, and I don't necessarily wish to side with SM companies, who are not the nicest people on the planet.
Of course we don't want children watching inappropriate material. But that was the same thing with the "video nasty" panic in the 1980s. We don't need to legislate. We need to parent.
Agree parents do need to parent, but they don't. My years of teaching in secondary school from no kids with smart phones,lap tops etc to every kid with them and the impact of that in so many ways has informed my view. I knew 30 years ago when I brought up my son that too many parents just cave in.
And back through the Victorian children who knew where Father's Saucy Metzotints and copy of Lady Chatterley was hidden. I bet neolithic children knew where the dirty cave paintings were.
Forgive me if this sounds condescending, but I'm not sure you're grasping just quite the levels of violence that kids can access on SM. Video of brutal, violent pornography, torturing of animals and people, self-harm etc. All of these are far more graphic than Lady Chatterley.
And worse, create themselves for clicks. I saw how bad it was getting 6 years ago before I quit teaching. A far cry from finding a porn mag!
As adults we are mostly out of touch with children’s experiences. Kids now say they don’t want the extreme violent sexual content, groomers, predators, scams & bullying on phones. But they do want phones for friendship, safe good quality information, games & media. Fair enough. We should listen.
I agree to an extent with that but, as much as I generally hate the phrase, the genie is out of the bottle with these things. We also have legislated age ratings on all forms of entertainment to stop children from seeing inappropriate content. Why would online platforms be any different?