• some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Underage drinking is still more common than it should be, despite strict laws. The point is, it doesn’t do any good to go after the consumer, regardless of age. in order to make a meaningful impact, legislation would have to destroy or significantly neuter social media companies altogether, globally. Anything else will be a disappointment.

    The more effective way to reduce these harms is through social/cultural change, but that’s easier said than done.

    • bobzer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Underage drinking is still more common than it should be,

      Sure, but it’s significantly lower than legal drinking.

      We as a society acknowledge the harm of underage drinking so prohibition is effective. Prohibition of adult drinking was puritan bullshit the majority didn’t agree with so it didn’t work.

      I think you’d find a majority of parents agree social media is shit, but they’re unwilling to isolate their child. In this case prohibition would be effective.

      • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It will be effective if the prohibition takes the form of these companies no longer existing, at least in their current form, OR if the majority turn against them, making them irrelevant. An age gate won’t do anything, not on its own