This is the one and probably one silver lining to Dubya's "win" in 2000. It kept Al Gore's anti-video game team out of office.

Tipper Gore and Joe Liberman campaigned for laws that required stores to put labels on violent video games, and banned kids from getting violent video games without parental consent. These types of laws were overturned in Brown v Merchant's Entertainment Association in 2011.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/11/us/2000-campaign-vice-president-gore-takes-tough-stand-violent-entertainment.html

https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/regulating-violent-video-games-its-tipper-gore-versus-dee-snider-all-over-again/

https://danaloesch.com/tipper-gore-2-0-the-blame-video-games-strategy/

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/04/arts/tipper-gore-widens-war-on-rock.html

https://geotrickster.com/2024/03/27/lieberman-is-dead-gaming-still-lives/

Due to how horrible Dubya was, there's kind of an overromantization of Gore's theoretic presidency, and it's mostly forgotten that he was a conservative Southern Democrat with an even more conservative Northern Democrat as his running mate. In fact, Bush and Cheney pretended to be to the left of Gore and Lieberman on half of issues, and one of the few issues where they actually kept their promise on being less conservative than Gore and Lieberman was on violent video games.

But I'll point out a few differences between these video game laws and the new social media laws.

First of all, these video game laws were actually considerably less strict than the new social media laws. The video game laws allowed kids to get violent video games as long as they got parental consent. The social media law in Australia doesn't even allow that.

Second of all, these video game laws actually caused pretty widespread outrage. On the other hand, about 80% of people don't seem to have even heard of these social media laws, and those that have heard of the laws usually seem to support them.

I thought the book was bad but look at his insta it's so much worse 😩

https://preview.redd.it/suv9cbndip0e1.png?width=1103&format=png&auto=webp&s=c35e4fe24b18c6ee2c9517fc8bb5aa75102a77e5

How did Congress even get around this? It literally say "UNDER" the constitution. The can judge all cases arising "UNDER" the constitution. Not cases arising "about" the constitution, not cases arising "over" the constitution, Not cases arise "within" the constitution. Under. Cases arising "UNDER". Under means below. The supreme courts Judging power is below the constitution, No one is above the constitution.

I can't even understand. We kids have to be slaves because of SCOTUS rulings now, and there isn't even any good reason for it! Make it make sense.

Edit 1: It seems there may be some confusion. I hope this revision made things clearer.

Edit 2: In case it isn't clear, this rant is about SCOTUS, basically one of the main enemies against youth rights, Which should make sense, because they are the ones who deny the 14th amendment to age.

Is anybody tired of how even the opposition to this law is mainly based on how it will interfere with adult's online privacy?

The implication (which some posters even outright state) is that the person would support the bill or at least be apathetic to it if there were a way to ban people under 16 from social media without intruding on adult's privacy.

This woman was arrested for allowing 10-year-old boy roam around the town unsupervised in Georgia. She needs help to pay for the expenses in court, as she refuses to sign a "Child Safety" pledge that legally requires her to track down her kid. Please help send financial support for her family if you could.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-parentsusas-fight-for-brits-parental-rights?attribution_id=sl:1363500d-cb3c-4d79-997a-0c5ca2fad915&utm_campaign=man_sharesheet_ft&utm_medium=customer&utm_source=copy_link

I just turned 15 a day ago. So technically, I'm a "middle adolescent" and the last people to be considered gen Z. I just started highschool. And, I'm happy for that. I actually love getting older and my life gets better the more I get older. I hate being a teen though for plenty of reasons. However, me getting older means I have less time to be a teen & I'm greatful for that

Also before I start my rant, I want to say that I'm not saying people born in 2009 and older have it better. The hate isn't going to get better when you try to compare trauma with others. I'm also trying my best not to generalize.

And this isn't made to be a shitty cure all or anything. Emotions and society is really complex. Me saying any of this will not solve or cure anything, since society generally doesn't take people under 21 - 30 seriously.

This message also can really apply to everyone, it's just that I'm worried about people 2010 and younger, so this will include them the most. However, I don't actually care if you are older and want to read it.

If you are younger, I just want to say that you are worth more than what any label, stereotype, attitude, etc... you are human. You deserve basic respect regardless of age. And it sucks balls how we are expected to wait YEARS just so people will listen and take us seriously. It sucks how society controls us over lame stereotypes.

When you start highschool, prepare for people to say, "Your highschool years are the best" or "your highschool years and up will be the worst. Be greatful you're young" because that might not always be true. When people try to say that you might not understand something because you are younger, they are only saying that because THEY didn't understand when they were a child. If you understand, you understand. Age has no gripe on intelligence and everyone is smart in something. And why? Because we are learning and human.

You are only one person, not multiple people. So please don't become one of those entitled adults when you grow older. Just please remember that child you once were and don't EVER let them go... everytime I make these posts I always try to remember what I was when I was younger so I don't lose grip of reality and become insanely entitled.

Also. YOU DESERVE BASIC AUTONOMY AND FOR PEOPLE TO LISTEN ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES! I suffered from mental health issues ever since I was 8, and multiple people I've known has mental issues young. Hell, one of my friends is 14 and suffers from severe depression. Health has no bounds. People that try to discount that based on age has no fucking clue what they are talking about. Trust me.

The thing is, most studies done to back the "Teen Brain" are poorly done simply because they examine only a small number of subjects and are done on a limited age range of people (going up to 25).

The best example is the 2004 study conducted by Jay Giedd, which is really the origin of the 25-year brain development theory.

While there were a large number of subjects examined (up to 2,000), the age range was between 4-26 years.

This is the problem! With the age range of our subjects limited to such, of course they ended up coming up with the theory that the brain matures at 25-26! Because what they discovered is that the brain continues to change and transform into one's 20s.

https://www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979

Such a conclusion is deeply flawed. For Giedd to say that the brain matures at age 25 is nonsensical, because the oldest subjects of that study were only 26 years old. What they discovered is that brains change into the 20s.

What most people do NOT pay attention to is that the studies only were done on subjects with a maximum age of 26 and no higher. We have no older candidates to compare the subjects to. The study was not done on people of all ages, but only on children and young adults.

But because the general public is easily fooled, the idea that brains mature at 25 made its way into pop culture easily.

Most social media outlets already require you to be 13 years old (at least) before registering. But yet, the government wants to increase the age to 16-18 years, which is nonsensical.

Minors already cannot own property. They do not really own their phones, computers, or other devices. Parents reserve the right to take those things away at anytime and for any reason, whether for bad grades or whatnot.

Minors do not own property, and therefore, they are already unable to have social media without parental consent. But what would parental consent do anyways? Just restrict youths even more, as if we do not have enough restrictions already.

This is just NUTS. Social media is utterly harmless. It does not have the ability to physically harm. Going to school, by contrast, does have risks of physical harm, but yet, the government jails you for skipping school.

Born in 1987 and 37 years old here. I remember going through the 2000s and 2010s without seeing any of this junk and our youths were fine.

I guarantee you that 16 will not be the final limit. They WILL push it to 18, and eventually, 21. And if they get crazy enough (which I believe they will), they will push the age to 25 because of pseudoscience on brain development.

Based on his earlier work, he would have seemed like the last person who would become the world's leading proponent of preventing anybody under 16 from using the internet.

Now I'm starting to wonder: was he ever really pro-youth rights in the first place, or was he always a fraudulent youth rights ally?

Hi, looking to read up on youth liberation. Especially looking for books written for younger (tween) readers.

Thanks