Talk:Article suggestions: Difference between revisions

Line 66:

:Louis has since created an article page for this, see [[Amazon Luna revocation of third-party games]]. It needs some further work, but the basics are there. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 03:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

==Indonesia entry==

Look, I'm VERY far from a fan of the Indonesian government, but banning social media for children under 16 is by no means comparable to the anti-consumer practices that this site is meant to document. Not only is there ample evidence that social media has negative effects on children's health and mental development, the companies behind it are part of the same class that gets richer and richer from anti-consumer practices. If the issue is that the mechanisms intended to prevent children from accessing it are violating users' privacy and ownership rights, I can understand how it fits into this and I think it's worth looking into, but then the entry should be about that, not about banning social media. Please do not normalise giving kids access to products that were consciously and deliberately designed to be addictive.

I suggest either removing the entry or going deeper into why the law is harmful -- and if it is indeed harmful, it's not because of the social media ban itself.

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :Louis has since created an article page for this, see [[Amazon Luna revocation of third-party games]]. It needs some further work, but the basics are there. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 03:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
+==Indonesia entry==
+Look, I'm VERY far from a fan of the Indonesian government, but banning social media for children under 16 is by no means comparable to the anti-consumer practices that this site is meant to document. Not only is there ample evidence that social media has negative effects on children's health and mental development, the companies behind it are part of the same class that gets richer and richer from anti-consumer practices. If the issue is that the mechanisms intended to prevent children from accessing it are violating users' privacy and ownership rights, I can understand how it fits into this and I think it's worth looking into, but then the entry should be about that, not about banning social media. Please do not normalise giving kids access to products that were consciously and deliberately designed to be addictive.
+I suggest either removing the entry or going deeper into why the law is harmful -- and if it is indeed harmful, it's not because of the social media ban itself.