[ SECRET POST #6760 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6760 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #965.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Wouldn't this hurt education by quite a bit?

If the question were 'social media' that's one thing but 'internet' is a lot more than social media. Students not having open access to knowledge and research might be a bad idea, especially if then local governments censor all paper materials and decide the extent of what they get to know instead.

da

[(Anonymous)]

The internet of yesteryear is not the same internet we have right now, and even that wasn't safe. I'd say Wikipedia and Britannica and actual educational sites would be good for students to have, but the sites that are actually safe and human-made safe websites dedicated to actual children are a rarity, now.

With the Internet having conglomerated into less than half a dozen websites, Elsagate and AI slop, and monetizing the worst kind of content possible, I really do not feel comfortable with young people having access to the web it is right now. Let alone my kids, nephews, and nieces.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

As politely as I can, that's a privileged POV. The internet is a global thing, not only for wealthy Western countries where kids have tablets and time to waste watching Elsa on youtube. It's incredibly important for spreading good information and teaching skills to people who cannot get it elsewhere, especially medical info and things that go against the oppressive orthodox religion/politics of the area.

That's how you get "no gay people exist in our town/city/country, they're a liberal myth" and "no books allowed that go against our religion" and "every single person in Other Country is horrible and worthy of death" and you get no way to counter that narrative because every other form of mass media is way easier to control.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

And if people grow up for 18 years knowing only that, their minds will be much harder to change. Look at kids that grew up in evangelical families even in wealthy Western countries. Some learn better as adults and leave, but it'd be much much harder if they had no idea what the internet was or how to use it for almost 20 years, and had to start fresh on their 18th birthday. Imagine never, ever having talked to single person not of your race or nationality or sexuality or political affiliation except through snail mail or something for your entire childhood. Imagine never having run into any news from sources other than what's available locally or nationally.

The world would change and severely for the worse.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

One of the things I worry about is algorithms. Dreamwidth is one of the few sites that remain that are free from them. My generation likewise had the hope that social media and the internet would set people free, that they would become educated, that the internet could not be tamed and lead people into knowing new perspectives...

Then came gamergate, then Donald Trump, followed by the rise of fascism everywhere around the world, using the internet not unlike how the nazis used the radio. If you see YouTube without any addons and without having blocked anyone, the biggest things you will be recommended are far-right grifters. Educational content and algorithm-less interaction has been pushed more and more to the wayside, one has to learn how to find it. And that's saying nothing of the many studies on the anxiety teenagers suffer due to social media.

I just hate what the Internet has become. Worse still, sanitizing the Internet for any potential children using it has only censored it, making the worst of both worlds: An internet that is not safe for developing minds, and an internet that is censored and turned into a megaphone for the worst people.

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with all that, but don't see it as a logical reason to ban anyone under 18.

Imagine how much worse all that would be if 18 year olds that had never spoken to anyone outside their race/sexuality/political group/local area before and had never seen the internet, immediately ran face first into the exact same massive disinfo campaigns. Algos didn't make things worse than 50 years ago, they returned them closer, but not exactly, back to how they were BEFORE free internet existed and local and national things controlled mass media anyway. Like do you think FOX News and OANN stops existing because 17 year olds can't go on Tiktok? No, they just watch that instead because their parents do and they have no other options and no other sources of information or personal connections, then find the nazi stuff on the internet when they turn 18 and dive in because they've literally never spoken to a real live person outside their country before...

Re: ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Also if the problem is with disinfo, why not ban disinfo and make the rule death for disinfo???? Why ban LGBT teens who might need to anonymously access resources or support, or pregnant teens who might need to anonymously access abortion info, or abused children who might need to anonymously research how to leave their families?

It doesn't even help with the disinfo problem. Disinfo targets adults and works just as well on adults. You are trying to excuse a really bad blanket rule with huge outside consequences by saying "protect (some, and only some) children." It's not worth the tradeoff.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

+1000