Alternate idea: it’s not my job to raise someone else’s kids.

I was a rotten kid growing up with distant parents and a hostile sister.

If I’d had access to porn and comics without leaving the house, I’d have become one of these people.

This is why the tech bros don’t want their kids growing up looking at screens.

Yes lol

Sorry but that’s absolutely not true.

Boys not being allowed to cry, being man enough, strong enough has always been a thing since before anyone who touched the Internet was born.

This isn’t new at all.

Murica is doing typical murica things.

I mean, I’ve worked as a teacher for eleven years and I don’t know a single person who doesn’t think that social media contributed to declining behavior standards. When I say, ‘a single person’, I am referring to other teachers or administrators. I am not using hyperbole. Nobody thinks it is good, everyone thinks it’s bad, and every year we tighten the noose.

This is across three school districts and nine grade levels.

This is absolutely a kind of rage-bait.

I don’t doubt that there’s a growing segment of misogynistic boys who have been influenced by Tate and our society’s general check-out when it comes to being communal and supporting each other and the absolute bullshit mess that social media and online dating has created for young relationships, the statistics are abysmal and worrying…

But that said, the large majority of all Americans at any age are still pretty much just getting through it like always.

These kinds of stories, while beneficial that they are highlight and showing us problems that need to be addressed, all they’re doing without a prescriptive solution or counter-point is just wedging this division in our community further and further apart. It’s making girls scared of boys. It’s making boys scared that girls will think they’re horrible misogynists, and thus they will be defensive at the ready accusations and the exchanges spiral from there.

It’s revolting that we cling to hateful figures so readily. They give us validation for pent-up frustration and anger at a system that has abandoned us. That’s why it’s addicting to read about horrible things and horrible people. Which makes horrible things and horrible people. Our addiction to hating people is creating people like Tate, because our desire to hate someone makes us click on these stories over and over and feel that righteous outrage that seems to make everything make sense. It’s addicting and we need to recognize it and stop imbibing in it.

Fake Sky News is also a rage machine.

That’s the whole point of screaming about “liberal” or “leftist” media for all this time even when most media outlets are owned by for profit orgs. They usually have to comply with laws. On social media you’ve been able to lie as much as you want without consequence or being called out. Corporations mostly use this to market to children and get them addicted to gambling.

You know you’re actually right on the money, and it’s a little startling that it never occurred to me before. Shit.

Yep, that’s why the only way to be a good parent nowadays is to not give your kids smart phones or computers of their own. There was a time when it was kinda ok for them to have those devices, but that time is permanently in the past.

It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult.

I love how you got a ton of upvotes by vaguely gesturing at the past.

When was this time you speak of?

What has changed is the social fabric of society has been ripped up.

Twenty years ago, the media that kids had available for consumption was age rated.

It was, still is, was ten years before, and trust me that didn’t stop me one bit.

What’s different then and now is the degree of choice people employ in their media consumption. It’s not like there was no Nazi propaganda on the net in 1990, it’s that who the fuck seeks that stuff out. The feeds that were choice-free were, yes, sanitised (TV, radio, though if you stayed of long enough TV would show rather interesting things), but also numerous. Like at least seven TV channels over the air, and plenty of radio stations (though most played shoddy music). Imagine having seven tiktok feeds you can’t fast-forward but switch in between. On current algorithmic platforms, you skip something, get shown the next thing, algorithm learns about you, about how to draw its hooks specifically into you. Back in the days, you couldn’t skip, switched away, and if there was only uninteresting stuff on the other channels you switched off. Internet? Age of web rings, search barely even existed. Anyone remember altavista?

I roamed the library, inhaled multiple series of books whole-sale, but in between, there was always this magic moment: Browsing. Looking at things, shaking them a bit, see if they’re actually interesting. Great availability of things, yes, but also limited time, and preferences, so you got picky.

That’s the skill that’s getting lost: People are outsourcing their consumption choices to algorithms. Worse, ones who care about nothing but retention, how can they keep you hooked so you watch more ads.

…which btw ties back into youth protection. Ratings etc. exist but the general consensus in youth psychology is that as soon as youth seeks something out by themselves, they’re ready to consume it. Ratings are there so that kids don’t stumble across things inadvertently, not so that they are completely unable to consume it. A hoop to jump through, maybe some secrecy, all that is a proper framework, “they think it’s not for me, I think otherwise”, puts the mind in the right inquisitive-but-cautious frame. That, however, presumes a choice algorithm that’s running in your head, and not in the cloud.

And meanwhile, “media literacy” is understood as “spotting fake information”. BS. Any information will become true to anyone if you allow it to be fed to you without getting your own agency involved. The question is less “are kids able to sniff out BS” – they by and large are. The question is whether they have the power to say “I choose not to continue down this path”, whether they have trained that muscle. Because without that no amount of skill in spotting bullshit will save you.

Countries, especially influential ones like the UK, that are suffering from this BS should band together and fine the shit out of megacorps like Google for allowing this filth to fester and the harm it’s done so far, and also threaten to revoke their operational rights if they don’t agree to strict moderation going forward.

With social media being dominated by US style “freedom of speech” algorithms and US style acceptance of the impossibility (or even undesirability) of regulation and with completely unaccountable megacorps running them while giving very minimal if non-existent attention to who is watching what, we have a complete lack of age rating. We have given up on the idea of protecting childhood it seems.

…and you have clearly given up any pretense of not being extremely authoritarian it seems, what the hell does “freedom of speech algorithms” even mean? Rhetorically you are completely mixed up about what is going on and what the solution is, I am amazed you made it here to the fediverse.

We had agreed as a society that certain things should not be visible to children until they grow up.

Do you have evidence the systems we employed to do this actually didn’t make problems worse? As far as I can see, it is also just overly righteous adults desperate to fix the world in ways that don’t make them look inwards and question the policies they support and the beliefs they hold.

These kids already have been left behind by someone and they filled the void with people telling them it wasn’t their fault.

And your solution is to leave them even more behind? That’s just compounding the problem.

The solution is guidance and therapy. What you’re describing is retaliation.

Second (and I’m not sure how we would do this) cut them off from the internet.

There are a whole bunch of ways to monitor, limit, and even cut off your kids internet usage. If you get your kid a cell phone or computer, you can install apps to monitor and limit what they watch and when. The fact that parents just let their kids freely use the internet with no supervision blows my mind.

Maybe check if Sky News is making stuff up first?

Or he’s your friend’s weird, 28 year old brother, whose room is only lit with black lights, and UV reactive posters, has no job, smokes weed all day, and trips all the time, who tells you Mayans invented cell phones.

The nuns at my father’s Catholic school were brutal. They would slap you with a yard stick if you talked back.

Abuse isn’t the solution to miseducation.

Imagine believing that catholic school cures people of their misogyny. Wow.

I would also include the death of the “third place”. Because even if you work enough to survive, where do you spend your time outside of the home with other people in your community without spending money? Even worse options if you want kids allowed.

One of the only places I know of is the library. But I’d be very surprised by an 8-10 year old boy spending their time at the library.

Jackasses like Tate get to influence the children, because there is a void that has been left empty

I’d like to amend this to say that there is void that support “boys”. There’s a lot of encouragement for the development of girls into STEM, into sports, into everything else but there’s no encouragement for boys. Boys are left to fend for themselves and if they don’t get the right support and encouragement at home, they end up ripe for influencers like Tate.

I would argue that those factors aren’t a direct cause, but the isolation leaves them vulnerable to things like this. The internet used to be wide open and your semi-random traversal of independent sites would still expose you to a diverse array of people and content.

The pursuit of profit led to massive, accessible, engagement driven social media platforms. Optimization for ad views meant segmenting demographics and serving them distilled content. The hyper specific content led to these demographics living in echo chambers based on their flavor of polarizing content.

The Tate-sphere is built around exploiting that isolation and selling bogus solutions. There’s no specific reason the algorithm funnels into it other than it’s catches a broad user base on a charged topic => $$$. The algorithm could just as easily push young men into fighting for socially beneficial causes, but anger is a strong emotion that gives the most money.

It’s not either or. It could be both. In rhis case, most of these reasons can be traced back to the perversion of capitalism.

I’m clueless, what slang are we talking about here, I doubt I’d know it if I heard it.