Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?
I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won’t develop further, then there’s not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).
That said, I’m against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).
Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.
Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.
Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.
99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.
there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing
Sure, but the “25 years old” figure comes from when the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently developed (i.e. reaches peak volume). That part of the brain has a lot to do with cognitive control, and it’s generally a time when most people have made or are about to make very long-term decisions, such as careers, relationships, etc.
The age of 18 for being an “adult” is even more arbitrary, 25 is a pretty decent cut-off that has some scientific merit. I’m not saying we should base any laws on it, I’m just saying that after that point, you’re probably about as prepared to make these types of choices as you’ll ever be, so if you have a mental development disability, we should probably end any restrictions around that time unless you specifically opt-in to additional protections.
is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility?
Sure, which is why every rule like this should have exceptions. For example, I think we should allow 16yos (and perhaps 15yos) to vote, if they can answer important questions about how government works (i.e. what does a Senator do vs a House Rep?), policy choices of various candidates, etc. As in, demonstrate that they are actually interested in politics instead of just being pushed/manipulated by their parents/other adults. That type of “test” should exist for any policy where there’s an age gate. Who is in power absolutely will impact 16yos before they get a chance to vote, so it makes a ton of sense to give them a say if they’re aware of the political process.
But once you’re an adult, society has essentially decided that you’re free to screw up your life. We let you smoke, drink (in some areas), go into debt, join the military, etc. If we’re okay with that, there’s no reason to limit your choices on other things as well.
Going back to the topic at hand, if this law needs to exist, there should be a way for younger kids to demonstrate understanding of the dangers of social media, how to recognize predators, etc in order to get access before that legal cutoff. But even if that exists, I’m still against it because of the privacy violations that would need to exist to actually enforce this law. If this is just a token law and is effectively neutered by other privacy laws, maybe it’s not an issue. I don’t know Norwegian law, but I do have a similar law here and it absolutely involves privacy violations to enforce (i.e. have to provide government-issued ID to many websites now).
I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won’t develop further, then there’s not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).
That said, I’m against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).
Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.
Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.
Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.
99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.
Sure, but the “25 years old” figure comes from when the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently developed (i.e. reaches peak volume). That part of the brain has a lot to do with cognitive control, and it’s generally a time when most people have made or are about to make very long-term decisions, such as careers, relationships, etc.
The age of 18 for being an “adult” is even more arbitrary, 25 is a pretty decent cut-off that has some scientific merit. I’m not saying we should base any laws on it, I’m just saying that after that point, you’re probably about as prepared to make these types of choices as you’ll ever be, so if you have a mental development disability, we should probably end any restrictions around that time unless you specifically opt-in to additional protections.
Sure, which is why every rule like this should have exceptions. For example, I think we should allow 16yos (and perhaps 15yos) to vote, if they can answer important questions about how government works (i.e. what does a Senator do vs a House Rep?), policy choices of various candidates, etc. As in, demonstrate that they are actually interested in politics instead of just being pushed/manipulated by their parents/other adults. That type of “test” should exist for any policy where there’s an age gate. Who is in power absolutely will impact 16yos before they get a chance to vote, so it makes a ton of sense to give them a say if they’re aware of the political process.
But once you’re an adult, society has essentially decided that you’re free to screw up your life. We let you smoke, drink (in some areas), go into debt, join the military, etc. If we’re okay with that, there’s no reason to limit your choices on other things as well.
Going back to the topic at hand, if this law needs to exist, there should be a way for younger kids to demonstrate understanding of the dangers of social media, how to recognize predators, etc in order to get access before that legal cutoff. But even if that exists, I’m still against it because of the privacy violations that would need to exist to actually enforce this law. If this is just a token law and is effectively neutered by other privacy laws, maybe it’s not an issue. I don’t know Norwegian law, but I do have a similar law here and it absolutely involves privacy violations to enforce (i.e. have to provide government-issued ID to many websites now).