this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
100 points (97.2% liked)

Canada

11810 readers
597 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An Angus Reid survey says three-quarters of more than 4,000 respondents are in favour of a ban like the one in Australia, where youth under 16 are prevented from setting up accounts on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Threads.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

I support this. Of course the ideal circumstance is to regulate tech companies but when Canada tried to institute a digital services tax Trump immediately ended tariff negotiations so I don't think America is interested in having their tech companies regulated.

The harm to people, especially adolescents, is too great in my opinion so this is the next best option.

I'm also not on social media so this doesn't really affect me. I encourage everyone else do the same. If Lemmy ever asked for anything like that I'd stop using it.

[–] unbanshee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

We'll try literally anything but regulating big tech.

[–] Teppa@lemmy.world -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago

If you're being serious, proper taxation, proper intellectual rights enforcement, age enforcement, appropriate moderation of harmful content, limiting hate speech and promotion of Canadian content / artists similar to other mediums.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The problem here is not parenting, it's not even the idea of social media, but rather the algorithms that amplify the worst behavior and encourage it. These need to be banned for all ages. This is why we have these negative feedback loops causing grown men to draw political opinions on the side of their trucks.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is parents facilitating access to social media. If you kid only has internet access through a filtered device there is no issue.

No different from parents in the early 1900s having to teach their kids about the dangers of electricity, parents of the 2000s need to teach their kids about the dangers of digital living.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

People love to cry it’s the parents like parents aren’t generally being worked to the bone just to keep a roof over their kids heads and food on the table they also need to be ever present hawks of everything their kid does but also not be a helicopter parent who sheltered their kids too much etc. it’s an unwinnable game and parents are in the same capitalist meat grinder as the rest of us

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

It's no different than making sure your aging parents don't get scammed or lose the ability to stay connected with the world. The 25-45 age bracket in Canada is the best equiped to keep their young and old family members from getting their lives trashed by the money machine.

Make tools to make that job easier, don't make thin edge of the wedge laws that help corporate interests restrict and monetize us.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I agree, BUT it needs to be the parents who enforce it by simply not giving them pocket computers.

New laws should always be the last resort, not the go-to "solution".

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

It's a coordination problem; your child is greatly disadvantaged in many ways by being the only one without a phone. So it needs everyone to fix the problem simultaneously; this isn't really practical without a gov't intervention.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

it needs to be the parents who enforce it by simply not giving them pocket computers.

then the local schools insist on using social media apps for information.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Which is why it should be illegal, but enforcement should be light.

It's ridiculous to require websites to validate users ages. That's either a massive security vulnerability waiting to be exploited, or pointlessly easy to bypass.

Instead, we should treat it like "bad parenting" and treated like a form of neglect, with social workers helping parents learn about the harms of social media.

Then, we don't lose our civil liberties and human rights while still "protecting the kids". Let's put the millions of dollars that the age verification middleware was going to charge and put that money towards social workers and mental health counsellors, eh?

But, most of all, we need to make addictive patterns* themselves illegal, and also the dark patterns that trick users into making choices that benefit the platform over their own interests.

* Although I worry that they might make videogames that depend on random chance illegal, too. Loot collection RPGs are only fun because of the random chance at loot, but I worry they'll be caught by "gatcha/loot box regulations" if the laws are written by clueless politicians.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This required more than an upvote.

[–] TotalCourage007@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I'd forcefeed this thread to the simpletons just blindly agreeing to losing our freedom. I didn't choose to be a parent so why should MY freedom be affected? SECURITY is what keeps people safe not the opposite FFS.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 10 points 19 hours ago

Bloody fools, giving up your id to silicon valley, surrendering to them, letting in the trojan horse of ai censorship behind the walls of liberal democracy, to protect the kids. Which it won't protect them to have silicon valley, and every other predator on the internet knowing everything about you. Sweet dreams.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

What even constitutes as "social media"? If a website has a comments section, is that now blocked? What about Wikis that have a "talk" tab for discussion? Message forums? What about social apps like Discord and IRC? Does YouTube count as social media?

We don't need to ban social media, we need to start really pushing critical think and education.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

This is what the OS level age verification is meant to do. It shifts the burden of age verification from the social media companies and websites to someone else.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Have none of you seen a single dystopian scifi film????

???????????

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The idea that people on the fediverse would support this blows my mind.

It says most "canadians", not "most canadians on the fediverse". I think most of us who are on here are here for the reason that we know social media is basically poison, but that we also support a free and open/anonymous internet too.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

And yet there seems to be a disproportionate number of users here ready to bend over and take the dry dystopian dick of authority in order to avoid policing their own children.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

Probably AI/Bots 💀

[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (23 children)

Or you know, you can let parents take care of their own kids. Stop telling me how to parent my own kids in my own house!

Also obligatory reminder, consumer home routers have had parental controls for years. You can use these functions to whitelist specific websites for your children, while simultaneously block everything not on said whitelist.

On top of this, this is the most privacy respectful option as it means no third party is snooping on what sites your visiting, no one is collecting analytics, and no personal information is made available to said third parties to be hacked and compromised, ultimately protecting you from any identity theft.

On top of this this "same issue" was why TVs have had parental controls for ages. All a parent would need to do is choose to enable and block certain channels behind a passcode/pin for their children. And somehow this solution has worked without being privacy intrusive.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

Never!

Also, I still can't figure out why when my 8 year old annoys me and I give them the keys to the car to keep them busy why they always get up to so much trouble.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›