Can libertarians stomach Jonathan Haidt’s push to AGE-GATE social media? 

No social media for ANYONE. keep it simple 😅

The problem with age verification is that lying exists.

The issue (IMO) is a child's brain is more susceptible to addiction. I briefly dated a girl who would let her daughter (probably around 10) freely and unobstructed browse TikTok. Watching this little girls addiction made me sad and angry. Shortly afterwords I ended the relationship.

I'm convinced this is a problem, but I'm also convinced that this answer to the problem is worse than doing nothing.

We already have laws that parents cannot sign legally binding contracts without parents consent. Simply apply the existing law to the internet and throw out any contracts signed by minors without parental consent.

We age restrict many things in society thatbare deemed a risk for children. Social media should be no different.

This needs to happen

This is why Libertarians and AnCaps get the Age-of-Consent memes with video-titles like this.

Maybe separate the verifier similar to a notary public. You can provide a notary public in person or online (I'll go through example with in-person since worried about data breach) with your drivers license or other id: [1] request notary public in county or city office [2] notary public gives you an online age key that verifies you are over the age of [insert whatever age the law says]. **notary public doesn't know which websites or apps you're using** [3] go to website or app [4] when asked to provide age key, you enter. [5] now you're in (good for all websites and apps).

A minor little problem is that age restricting the internet would require all persons to provide positive identification, so as to assure that they are not minors. Letting any positive ID out in the cloud is an invitation to hack it.

Many parents are fools. I have spoken to parents about letting their 8 year olds mow lawns in sandals and let two kids bounce of (unnetted) trapolines. They didn't stop them.

Wait a minute, though. I was told over and over by the mainstream media, some schools, the medical field, and the Government of some states that young kids are old enough to know who they are and be able to make life changing decisions about their health. Also, that they should have access to sexualized media in schools. So why is this even a issue?

How many bots does it take to get a child to harm themselves?

Re that junior high problem mentioned at the end, maybe we should go back to boys' and girls' schools 6th through 8th or 9th grade, separating them by gender. I think it's still done a lot in Britain, and have heard kids say they're grateful for it.

I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative. I believe society is far better off if we age restrict social media.

Why is nobody talking about the rights and LIBERTY of children? Parents are guardians, they dont own the children.

I'm still not convinced. I think that the parental consent thing might be good, but really parents and their children, what the children do, it's a negotiation. It's a negotiation that the child always wins. The mere fact that you cannot stop a kid from doing stuff is evidence of the futility of using force againsg them. Even the parent using force, though the parent is most likely to know what the kid needs besides the kid itself. That's why it's a negotiation. Parents who cannot trust their kids to come out on top of things are bad parents and do not deserve control of their kids. My parents could always count on me to think rationally about things and to listen to their advice and respect the majority of their rules, because they weren't fucking stupid. They knew that they only needed to explain things to me and treat me with dignity. Because they did that, it made more sense for me to follow their rules than to go off half-cocked trying stupid shit and hiding it from them. If a parent cannot control their kid, they DO NOT DESERVE THE KID.

Why 16? Why not 18 or 21? Really should be a single united age for adulthood, not 12 (free meals in some restaurants), 13 (social media), 14 (working in some states), 16 (working in other states), 18 (majority of adulthood responsibilities), and 21 (renting car and buying alcohol). PICK. A. SINGLE. AGE.

Too latefor amy of this. Social media is used in schools as part of the education process in and before middle school.

If he says addictive mediums likes gambling, etc, being age-gated is justified, then does he support age-gating the consumption of sugar? Or perhaps are some addictive substances rightfully deemed passable while others are not?

Nic, please let your guests finish speaking before interrupting them. The best interviewers are also the best listeners.

Software engineer here, 12 years of experience and I'd like to weigh in. These laws are not plausible to enforce without giving up other rights and THAT'S the issue here. The only way you could feasible make this law work would be if we required age verification systems, which would give the government AND private companies your full ID. Say goodbye to online privacy and welcome a police state that can track you down for the wrong opinion expressed online. These laws are a gate way to giving the government the tools needed to silence free speech and that's not something we can allow to happen. Child safety is just a scare tactic to make you support these laws, they have nothing to do with child safety. There are PLENTY of ways to protect children online that doesn't require the government getting involved and it only requires parents to do better. If you have data concerns then bring in laws similar to the EU for online data protection and privacy.

1:02 "It is unfair to deny a man a steak because a baby can't chew." This is a bad metaphor because they are not mutually exclusive. The man can be eating steak AND you still shouldn't give it to the baby. Adults can still have social media AND children/young adolescents should not be allowed to use it.

IS it a conflict? We always say your rights end where mine begin. Sure, you can raise your kids how you want, but why should I be forced to be censored or restricted online to protect YOUR children? Children should not be interacting with adults online. Discussions get bogged down all the time because children with no life experience flood them with parroted opinions and juvenile arguments. (Not that adults don't do the same, but...) I'm all for age restrictions EVERYTHING online. (Keep your 12 year olds out of my adult games, thanks.)

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ I have loved Nick Gillespie since the beginning of time…………. And now his time is over. Please stop interrupting

The way he laughs when asked “so would my kid be taken for getting on at 13” is so disgusting & shows what an out of touch “academic” he is. The government would definitely use this to confiscate children & subvert parents rights. This “expert” should open a history book or news paper before saying such stupid things because it really shows he’s in a bubble away from reality. I don’t allow my child screen time at all but to say that’s the governments job to regulate is a brain dead take. Parents need to take responsibility for there children not the government. The way he says “force collective action” ok Hitler 👌 you can be the first one to go force collective action on parents.

Let device manufacturers sell kid specific phones, that look just like the regular smart phones, but which aren't connected to social media. Each parent can decide to buy their kids one or the other. Why not try that before going straight to a mandate?

Interesting how Social media is portraited as bad. any one seen the differenz between US and Chines Tiktok accounts? it is the same with the gun cultur debate, see USA compaired to Switzerland it is a cultural problem of the US

THIS CHANNEL HAS ALMOST A MILLION SUBS BUT ONLY HAS ONE VIDEO IN THE LAST MONTH ABOVE 100K VIEWS. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS IS A PROBLEM? START MAKING CONTENT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO WATCH!!!

Great discussion…

Isn't that the job of parents?

Thanks for doing interviews that challenge our beliefs rather than just reinforcing them. This one hasn't changed my mind but im glad you gave him a respectful chance to put forward his argument and you challenged him politely.

They told us that watching TV all day would rot our brains. Nothing new, same old outrage with only the subjects changing.

Social media isnt so much "Social" always, is it. Its more deceitful, misinformative, hateful, conspiratorial media. And nobody is better off with it.

Libertarians, don't you realize how insane you sound to normal people?

Reason would stomach wearing their grandmothers skin like a suit if they thought they could frame it as libertarian for one tenth of a second.

It seems like all life is just a projection of our emotional understanding of what we intake and express.

The problem with libertarians is that they want limited extortion and coercion and less violent punishment of peaceful people who don't obey politician's dictates. 🙄

What about age-gating for older people who dont know what theyre doing in this environment (akin to some kids)? What about disabled-gating for those deemed without mental capacity?

Any proposed solution that lessens privacy etc should be unpalatable. Kids online too young is a parenting/education problem.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ as a libertarian…… I cannot stand reality …….. I hope this is a simulation ……. Let’s all go to Sugar rock Candy Mountain.

Horrible idea, PARENTS NEED TO PARENT!

I'm so freaking tired of having to fight for freedom and privacy.

You stomach the age gating of cigarettes right? I’d rather have a kid that smokes cigarettes than uses social media every day, at least their mind won’t be rapped 🤷

Propaganda has negative externalities, but I don't think a psych test, or an age bracket solves the problem.

Every single objection he says he doesn't want the bad part that is being objected tobut then goes on to say that yes, yes he does want that thing. "You won't have to use your id". How does he think clear accounts work? "I don't want the government policing you over social media" next statement "congress needs to change the law". This man is either disingenuous, a full on liar, or not of the level of intellectual rigor to be respected.

Q: "What do you do to the parents who let there kids on ?" A: "I'm focused on blah blah blah" In other words good question, i ain't gone answer it.

So his argument is because you wouldn't feed your 2 year old whiskey then you shouldn't be legally allowed to let your 14yo use Facebook?