It would be like putting in a law about no children in pools, but the same number of drownings happened month over month. It could be a delayed indicator... It could also be the wrong policy solution. I’d love for there to be less harm to teenagers online. Just want the best policy solutions used.
I think it’s clear that there is evidence that ‘people want to do something’. Ofcom even tried to consult some terrible options such as a social media curfew for teenagers. My main issue with this policy solution is that there is little to no evidence that it works.
Welp I’m glad I tried it for a grand total of ten min this evening.
I did an interview a month+ ago on Canadian skills development for the AI economy. My argument was that Canada was being left out of it. I pointed out that Canada did not have access to things like mythos. Was actually happy to be proven wrong for a very short period of time. No more mythos.
Not sure why this jumped out at me. Probably cause I’ve spent many hours sucking at slay the spire.
“the model play the deck-building game Slay the Spire, […] memory improved its performance three times more than for Opus 4.8; Fable also reached the game’s final act three times more often.”
Everyone is now happy to bandwagon after Australia to put their own unique spin on things. The copycat + “here’s our unique twist”. Ie Canada will effectively license platforms that can host minors.
Yet the harm indicators that Australia used to justify the ban… haven’t changed since the ban.
UK allegedly to announce an under 16 ban shortly. “the weight of the evidence is there, which is quite overwhelming.”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...