But all the other kids will simply be on the next thing. They're on social media because that's accessible, but the assumption is the demand for such things will vanish because you banned them?
I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of these things were easily accessible, but they fulfilled a need.
The situation being addressed is basically "I am taking no steps to limit my child from access to something I already disapprove of" and I don't see how this would address anything. You got them off Snapchat or TikTok but why wouldn't word of mouth just find a new service to act as a virtual third space? Social media works just fine in a web browser.
Basically there's a strain of assumption which could be summarized as "children aren't smart enough to use Mastodon!" as though to do so is not just "visit this URL here's the QR code".
I'm (apparently) one of the few millenials who seems to actually remember and empathize with my teenage self, because the early forms of social media were something I really wanted. I posted on Usenet, used ICQ etc. None of these things were easily accessible, but they fulfilled a need.
The situation being addressed is basically "I am taking no steps to limit my child from access to something I already disapprove of" and I don't see how this would address anything. You got them off Snapchat or TikTok but why wouldn't word of mouth just find a new service to act as a virtual third space? Social media works just fine in a web browser.
Basically there's a strain of assumption which could be summarized as "children aren't smart enough to use Mastodon!" as though to do so is not just "visit this URL here's the QR code".