China Bans Minors From Supporting Influencers

[Andreu 37,216]

So they aren't really banned from buying or whatever, they will just need to do it through an adult that will filter and supervise their actions right? I don't see how this can be seen as a bad thing.

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

Just now, Jill said:

The government should absolutely interfere in the internet. Otherwise it would be a publicly accesible dark web  I don't support China at all but let's not get carried away

not where it isn't needed. do you forget when government copyright legislation threatened 90% of freely posted content on the internet? in areas where crimes are being committed, then yes, they should have authority, but governments have bias, an agenda and party lean and that should not be enforced on free forums. it's a slippery slope, and any overstep of government when it comes to the internet, regardless of individual area, should be discouraged.

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

3 minutes ago, Jill said:

Sis, 6 is a minor too and they don't. End of conversation.

okay. 6 is human, and so is 35, therefore we should stop everyone drinking alcohol because they fit in the same category.

[Jill 31,812]

Just now, Melancholia said:

not where it isn't needed. do you forget when government copyright legislation threatened 90% of freely posted content on the internet? in areas where crimes are being committed, then yes, they should have authority, but governments have bias, an agenda and party lean and that should not be enforced on free forums. it's a slippery slope, and any overstep of government when it comes to the internet, regardless of individual area, should be discouraged.

We're talking about minors being able to support influencers who are known to prey them for money, not an injustice based on not knowing what Fair Use means.

[Jill 31,812]

Just now, Melancholia said:

okay. 6 is human, and so is 35, therefore we should stop everyone drinking alcohol because they fit in the same category.

What? So you support this but want to lower the age of consent? Where's that objective line of coming of age according to you?

[Born2Gay 48]

china's serve. i would be so grateful if i never had to hear another thing about the charli damelio's of tiktok and instagram. 

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

Just now, Jill said:

We're talking about minors being able to support influencers who are known to prey them for money, not an injustice based on not knowing what Fair Use means.

reread my post. this individual legislation doesn't target personal freedoms, but giving government authority in areas where there are other solutions lead to more serious consequences.

[Jill 31,812]

Just now, Melancholia said:

reread my post. this individual legislation doesn't target personal freedoms, but giving government authority in areas where there are other solutions lead to more serious consequences.

Again, you're not explaining any of these alternative so-called "solutions" you keep referring to. Personal freedom is no excuse to prey on minors.

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

6 minutes ago, Jill said:

Again, you're not explaining any of these alternative so-called "solutions" you keep referring to. Personal freedom is no excuse to prey on minors.

introduce advertising legislation instead of stopping minors from doing what they want (and can do healthily)? public discussion and education? as parents, control your cards more closely, or educate your children on how to spend their own money responsibly? if you want to keep using this very suggestive-of-assault language you're using like 'predator' and 'prey', your legislation should target the 'predator' not the people who are falling victim to it. targetting individual internet users is the problem, when you can target the larger corporations and entities that exist outside of the internet instead.

then again though, in this world, it's obvious people would wanna target people who fall victim to advertising instead of the advertisers themselves.

[Jill 31,812]

Just now, Melancholia said:

introduce advertising legislation instead of stopping minors from doing what they want (and can do healthily)? public discussion and education? as parents, control your cards more closely, or educate your children on how to spend their own money responsibly? if you want to keep using this very suggestive-of-assault language you're using like 'predator' and 'prey', your legislation should target the 'predator' not the people who are falling victim to it. targetting individual internet users is the problem, when you can target the larger corporations and entities that exist outside of the internet instead.

How can you say a minor spending money to support someone who is designed to prey on those same minors is in any way healthy? These are parasocial relationships that shouldn't be allowed until at least you come of age. These are all solutions that depend on the will of each person, and you know how that works out most of the time (see non-obligatory vaccination campaigns across the globe). The legislation is literally targeting the predators. There's no other way to word it except saying it bans minors from financing them. How else would you word it while having the same result?

[StarstruckIllusion 53,767]

13 minutes ago, Jill said:

What? So you support this but want to lower the age of consent? Where's that objective line of coming of age according to you?

Girl wyd… 

Not these whataboutisms

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

Just now, Jill said:

How can you say a minor spending money to support someone who is designed to prey on those same minors is in any way healthy? These are parasocial relationships that shouldn't be allowed until at least you come of age. These are all solutions that depend on the will of each person, and you know how that works out most of the time (see non-obligatory vaccination campaigns across the globe). The legislation is literally targeting the predators. There's no other way to word it except saying it bans minors from financing them. How else would you word it while having the same result?

because some people buy merchandise and think nothing more of it? not everyone buys merchandise or funds online rankings obsessively, and a vast majority of people i've met, online and in real life, don't. 'stans' and obsessive fans who buy everything their idols or favourite celebrities provide are a very small minority of people, and a simple control on how much corporations can advertise things can help this hugely. again, a 17 year old is a minor, and yet they could very easily be making their own money and virtually living self sufficiently. the age of which someone 'comes of age' is so vague that it's impossible to introduce legislation like this without infringing on someone's right to buy something totally harmless.

i'm technically a minor, and i collect music memorobilia. should i be stopped from buying vinyl or collector's edition cds just because they exist? i spend my own money on them, and i get them of my own free will. and yet in my country i could legally get married or have a child. that shows how hard it is to define that line, and why legislation like this will ALWAYS be just as harmful as it is helpful.

[Jill 31,812]

4 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Girl wyd… 

Not these whataboutisms

They are saying that because some 17yo has the ability to know the consequences of their actions this law shouldn't exist at all. What kind of argument is that?

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, Melancholia said:

because some people buy merchandise and think nothing more of it? not everyone buys merchandise or funds online rankings obsessively, and a vast majority of people i've met, online and in real life, don't. 'stans' and obsessive fans who buy everything their idols or favourite celebrities provide are a very small minority of people, and a simple control on how much corporations can advertise things can help this hugely. again, a 17 year old is a minor, and yet they could very easily be making their own money and virtually living self sufficiently. the age of which someone 'comes of age' is so vague that it's impossible to introduce legislation like this without infringing on someone's right to buy something totally harmless.

i'm technically a minor, and i collect music memorobilia. should i be stopped from buying vinyl or collector's edition cds just because they exist? i spend my own money on them, and i get them of my own free will. and yet in my country i could legally get married or have a child. that shows how hard it is to define that line, and why legislation like this will ALWAYS be just as harmful as it is helpful.

But a 12yo is also a minor. A 6yo is a minor. We all know nothing changes magically overnight when you turn 18, but that's the legal limit in most of the world, so the law revolves around that limit. If you didn't have that strict limit, then nothing could be done regarding legislation directed toward minors. People can still buy merchandise boo, they only need to do it though their parents if they're a minor.

[weed 79,328]

very weird. Can minors not become famous (or even partake?) then? i.e. actors, singers.