Skip to main content


The Science is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence is Fuelling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth
eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/scie…
in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

I have school age kids of my own and I agree with the social media bans for under 16's here in Australia. If parents can't be held responsible for their children, put it on social media to ban them. There's is clearly an issue with influence on young children coming from social media and online gaming platforms such as Roblox which opens up communication like MMORPG's.
in reply to Samuel Lison

@samuel Corp-run Social Media certainly is horrible for kids well-being, however the way they are abusing this as an excuse for their authoritarian designs is even worse IMO. At some point those kids grow up and have to live in a world with almost no more digital & (increasingly) physical #privacy - like the rest of us.

MadeInDex 📰🌎 reshared this.

in reply to Mark Newton

@NewtonMark That I am certain it is horrible for kids well-being? Hope that answers your question :) @samuel
in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@madeindex @samuel I only ask because corp-run social media has been around for a generation now, and if it “certainly” harmed kids’ wellbeing we’d have a major issue now with the cohort of them who’ve become adults, and we actually don’t and that cohort seems quite normal.

And also the experts who study it academically can’t form consensus on whether it’s harmful, so it isn’t at all obvious that it is.

We can speculate about whether it’s bad for kids’ wellbeing, or we can pick a specific child and assert that it’s bad for that individual, but it isn’t at all certain that it’s bad for kids in general.

That’s all.

in reply to Mark Newton

@NewtonMark

Young adults don't seem that mentally healthy to me at all.

The rates of serious mental illness (e.g. in the US) are very worrying.

Yes, I'm not an expert, but many articles I have read & my observations of the kids around me lead me to believe - corporate social media is a major factor in this.

For example, the recent social media addiction trials in the US found #Meta liable for harming teens (others settled).

techcrunch.com/2026/03/31/meta…
@samuel

MadeInDex 📰🌎 reshared this.

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

I agree with that perspective as well, at the same time. Yes, this will all eventually lead to requiring some form of official government ID to log into these sites (and I would rather log in with an SSO from a government agency vs handing over my ID to private social media businesses). And there are negatives and positives of that argument also.
in reply to Samuel Lison

@samuel I would not be against complete digital transparency if we lived in an utopian society, but as things stand, the "system" is frequently abused by the elites & corps.

Therefore if, if this were to pass now & you did anything they don't like, they will be able to stop you even easier & likely completely.

It would completely rob us of the ability to fight back.

Part 1/2

#Privacy

MadeInDex 📰🌎 reshared this.

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@samuel 2/2

E.g. posting something about a politician being corrupt or a corp evil & instantly getting sued for reputational damages, insulting an official etc.

MadeInDex 📰🌎 reshared this.

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

but yes, at the same time (as it is currently for me) - we wont be able to "speak our mind" without reprimand. You will still be able to "whistleblow" through dark web onion sources to media - but that will be the extend of it - no median where a majority can read your posts, share, speak up.
in reply to Samuel Lison

@samuel I guess the "dark web" would be shut down, all they have to do is block your ability to connect to certain ip ranges + make hosting illegal in their country 🤷
in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

hmm not really. Dark web is decentralized in nature. There is no "ip range' you log into. THere's also proxies through browsers these days to help with that kind of censorship that we can run, but yes for sure likely become more difficult.
in reply to Samuel Lison

@samuel I do wonder how much of the total traffic those are handling (since most (in some cases I feel like all) of the exit IPs seem to already be blocked by certain websites) and how many private citizens still would do it, if it became illegal 🤷

I do hope it never comes to that either though.

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

*I mean complete digital transparency on social media etc., not your search history or private communication.
This entry was edited (3 days ago)
in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@madeindex @samuel good comment.

That said, that they 'frequently do it' is the system. What is being negotiated is the cost of the social permission.

The line is 'way back there' for me.

in reply to Taran Rampersad

@knowprose Thank you so much friend! Means a lot ❤

💯 agreed! It's sad but that is the reality we live in.

@samuel

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@knowprose

I noticed many people believe, that Western countries ranking low on corruption indexes, shows they aren't corrupt as hell.

To me this just means it's at a higher, much harder to prove level.

Instead of starting at the cop level (which is still possible with connections), it starts at the points where multi-millions can be made without anyone really noticing.

E.g. farm land > residential use, construction projects, sale of government properties, favors for corps etc.

@samuel

MadeInDex 📰🌎 reshared this.

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@madeindex @knowprose @samuel I live in a country that pardoned literal insurrectionists.

I'm not sure there's a level of corruption that isn't actionable anymore. (Unless you're the CEO of a health insurance company.)

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

I think Western countries rank low on corruption indexes because those indexes were designed not to include the specific types of corruption in which they generally engage.

@knowprose

in reply to MadeInDex 📰🌎

@madeindex @knowprose @samuel Small scale criminals break the law, large scale criminals change the law, the biggest criminals break the society, so the laws don't apply to them.