There should be childhood and teenage level Operative Systems for devices so as to avoid early exposure to the apparent campaign to generate more content that can only be viewed by adults.
Social media is serving as a vessel for a market that demands, and it should only be able to do it to adults if at all, more and more “content” where it is either suggestive or be indeed a teaser for a longer video content that should be reserved to just adults.
As it appears to be the point of the USA in general ways is to allow for a society that is manageable enough so that children get to develop in timely ways and not become easy pray and then be rewarded financially for it, officially turning them into remote-prostitution.
Once teenagers turn 18, they should be able to perhaps begin to have access to that world. No amount of power should be able to circumvent or actually even hold the reigns of technology. Not under our watch, it shouldn’t, at least when it comes to children and teenagers who are expected to realize one or another sort of plan, dream or expectations.
The same way poor perverted actual deplorable individuals are caught trying to pursue predatory opportunities through online tools, and then arrested, should also the powerful be held accountable for their purposeful attempts to profit from easy young prey.
The best way to defend children of the world is by imposing policy that would require major phone developers to offer choices of OS for devices in childhood version, underaged teenager version and perhaps senior versions that would accommodate the actual needs and interests of those demographics vulnerable to predators of different sorts.
I agree with you that options for the parents should be available to prevent their kids from getting onto the wild west of the whole internet. This is the solution, not internet IDs. However, we cannot trust the major smart phone developers nor congress to protect children. Parents have to seek out solutions from open source software developers.
Censorship! Quit trying to “nanny” all of us. Speech is free and people have the right to read whatever they want to. We don’t need nannies to protect us from social media. Children have parents who can do that if they want to and we seniors certainly do not need “protecting.”
Oh, I agree that it should not be imposed on these demographics. Parents should choose to have such versions for kids. And senior citizen should also decide if and when they want to have a friendlier and shielded from usual scams that adults can handle or something. Thanks for your comment.
Yes, entirely so. It should not only be dependent on Congress and developers, all registered parents should be able to have a social network kind-of connection to their children’s rights, needs and interests from their access to internet. There should be ways to protect the vulnerable or voluntary demographics and prevent human trafficking, and all other et ceteras.
There should not be a nanny imposed. There should be different types of nannies available for each demographic to decide what version of operative system for the device they prefer in each device, etc. Not all children have parents in plural or at all. There should be the option for guardians to allow access to internet to children in a way that they can be social, convenient, educational and moderate in more than one regard, without the risk of getting exposure to criminal grooming parties that appear to populate many bank accounts in this world, affiliates, subsidiaries, fiduciary dependents and all the alike. The problem with human trafficking is that it has a market and it should be transparent-ilized. It should be brought out of Taboo whether body parts are needed. I do not have an opinion as to whether market demanding entire human bodies alive for sexual trafficking should be made mainstream necessarily.