Lemmy is meant to be a direct alternative to reddit and it copies plenty of design and user elements from there that don’t necessarily fit with the overall user use case here. There are whole instances without downvote buttons for example. This is an over-arcing statement that lumps together a bunch of instances and user bases that don’t necessarily comply with such a notion.
Sync doesn’t do this by default (I haven’t changed any settings to this effect). I’m currently in settings now looking for a setting to change just to see.
Edit: Under settings there is an option for setting comment views (settings/comment options/comment views). However it defaults to new. Additionally it does the same thing in my bed browser using Alexandrite.
The point is though this doesn’t work for everyone using Lemmy and it’s definitely a carry-over habit from reddit and similar messageboard style sites.
So they just want parody accounts to be clearly labeled? With the number of people constantly eating the onion, I’m gonna say that’s not the most terrible thing. People are dumb. They believe dumb shit.
Edit: Given that public officials use Bluesky and the whole check mark fiasco over on shitter, I’m just gonna say maybe they should have learned their lesson before now and enacted policies like this a long time ago but I guess better late than never. Can’t have a CDC parody account saying to drink bleach.
Sometimes the save button doesn’t give you context for why you saved it and it’s not something you check everyday.
That doesn’t work for me on Lemmy because in the app I use it doesn’t sort comments that way. So I see the comments basically newest first. This is reddit behavior is what it is.
The point is to prevent the detrimental effects to the mental health of teens and preteens. That doesn’t work unless you plug the holes. That’s the problem. Fallacy in argument or no fallacy.
The point we’re trying to make isn’t that we don’t want the restriction. We just understand that it’s not going to work specifically because it requires the same thing the under 13 privacy laws already include. Companies to comply (which they will, probably with detriments to legal users), and that parents be involved in what their children are doing online and restrict that accordingly to comply with the law (which we already know they aren’t).
I as a full grown adult am not willing to provide my details (picture of a government issued ID or similar) to most online entities. I certainly won’t ever be giving it to social media or a porn site of any kind. But that’s what’s going to end up being required to enact this law and make it enforceable. Is the law going to fine parents whose children aren’t in compliance? Is it going to fine businesses for not enacting enough restrictions? Is it going to outlaw VPN’s for use on social media?
Where is the burden of proof and who’s privacy gets invaded in order to enforce the law?
I was not (in my original comment or any subsequent ones in the thread) intending people to take this as “we shouldn’t do this because XYZ”. And I am aware that you weren’t responding to me. I was saying that it’s going to be problematic to enforce and isn’t likely to have the results intended.
It’s not about the handful of people per hundred who commit a murder. Because murder being illegal isn’t a deterrent and we have scientific studies to back that up. It’s about how 75-85% of teens will find a way to circumvent the law because they don’t understand the dangers and parents aren’t doing their part. So the rest of us will have to jump through hoops to use any social media.
If 75% or more of people the law effects aren’t following the law, the law doesn’t do what is intended and is going to have to be reworked.
The thing about kids getting a VPN, free or paid is that it will spread like wild fire. It only takes one kid who knows how to do something. They tried this at my highschool, blocking websites and such. That was more than 20 years ago and we knew how to use VPN’s or similar then and once we figured it out it was an open secret.
I’m not saying the law shouldn’t exist or that we should do nothing. I’m saying that this isn’t going to be effective as it is and could end up leading to worse things.
Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN’s and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN’s less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN’s. It sounds like a great idea but I don’t know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.
Hades 2.
On the contrary. Return to Chumbawumba.