Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Social Networks The Internet

The Chinese Version of TikTok Is Limiting Kids To 40 Minutes a Day (cnn.com) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the brain-rot dept.
The Chinese version of TikTok is introducing a "teenage mode" that will limit the amount of time children under the age of 14 spend on the short-form video app to 40 minutes a day. CNN reports: The measure will apply to all Douyin users under the age of 14 who have registered for the app using their real names, Beijing-based ByteDance announced in a statement on Saturday. Douyin will also be unavailable to those users between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., the owner of TikTok and Douyin added. The company also urged parents to help their children register with real names, or otherwise manually enable "teenage mode."

The app also said it would introduce new content -- ranging from science experiments and museums to art gallery exhibition and natural scenery -- to "inspire" younger teens. Limiting usage of Douyin is a "proactive measure" by ByteDance to get ahead of potential regulation, analysts at Citigroup Global Markets wrote in a Monday research note. They suggested that the decision could push other internet platforms with short video content to look at implementing similar restrictions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Chinese Version of TikTok Is Limiting Kids To 40 Minutes a Day More

The Chinese Version of TikTok Is Limiting Kids To 40 Minutes a Day

Comments Filter:

  • Ideally this would be solved with parenting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @10:09PM (#61815903)
    indeed, ideally, as many parents apparently are not strong enough limiting the addictive usage of these apps (and games) of their kids. So I am not against the typical Chinese strong-arm approach even if I wish it were not needed. I have 4.5 year old young twins myself, they can watch a bit of handpicked tv shows but especially need to play, draw, construct etc in their free time. Sometimes they are begging for more Peppa Pig or Pat and Mat, but once they start playing that disappears. Much healthier and better for the child development to be creating and interacting rather than absorbing. There will be enough screen time coming in any case.

    • In nanny-state America they have laws like you can't let you children smoke cigarettes. It really puts a crimp on certain unpopular parenting styles and is an affront to a parent's right to do whatever the hell they want.

      • What about seatbelts? Who needs those? Fuck nanny state laws, I already drive safely. And local "planning" regulations. Fuck those, it's my yard I'll build what the fuck I want. And "pollution" controls. The sky and oceans are fucking well close enough to infinite. Fuck that shit.

        • I was with you at seatbelts, but since the other things can actually harm others instead of just yourself, you lost me.

          • If you were with me at seatbelts, wear a seatbelt or the airbag will injure you in an accident.

            • Yes, but you don't harm anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the absolute right to be stupid enough to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm anyone else that's not something I have any right to keep them from doing.

              • Thing is that it's not true. If you injure yourself or become disabled in an accident, it incurs costs to the taxpayers... Either disability payments or taking care of your kids if you have any at young age or even offering counseling to people that might have been traumatised as bystanders. Worse case, if you die, it's extra efforts of cleaning the guts from the tarmac. So no, it's not as simple as "let them die".

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by fazig ( 2909523 )
              I also find the seatbelt thing odd.
              If you're only putting yourself in peril, why not?

              But if you don't put seatbelts on your kids and they die in an accident you put them into peril and you should be able to be charged with gross negligence.

              Once you cross the line where it is no longer limited to affecting you alone, but also affects others, your rights usually start to come to an end as you infringe upon the rights of others. And that includes pollution.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by SirSlud ( 67381 )

                If you don't strap yourself in, you become a projectile that can and routinely do injure other people, particularly other seat belted (or not) people in the same vehicle if not people in the area of a vehicle that instantaneously changes velocity.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by fazig ( 2909523 )
                  From a Newtonian physics side, plausible.

                  Though I'm not sure how the real world effects do look like, since car manufacturers usually don't build cars that are so crappy. For example it's not likely that someone not strapped in a front seat could easily break through the wind shield if the wind shield is in functional order. It's also not likely that someone not strapped into a back seat would injure someone sitting in a front seat since there's a seat in the path of the 'projectile'.
                  I can see issues in

        • The big difference between China and America is that you can get a religious exemption for wearing seatbelts if you have a "Jesus is my copilot" bumper sticker. That's real freedom from God.

      • "In nanny-state America they have laws like you can't let you children smoke cigarettes. It really puts a crimp on certain unpopular parenting styles and is an affront to a parent's right to do whatever the hell they want."

        This was true in the 1980s when I was growing up. Therefore all of the cool kids were smoking cigarettes and making sure the princie wasn't coming down the hall. Forbidden fruit and rebellion are strongly attractive and cool to teenagers.

        Of course now, cigarettes are no longer seen as coo

        • This was true in the 1980s when I was growing up. Therefore all of the cool kids were smoking cigarettes and making sure the princie wasn't coming down the hall. Forbidden fruit and rebellion are strongly attractive and cool to teenagers. Of course now, cigarettes are no longer seen as cool (maybe vaping is, I dunno).

          It took 40 years for those cool kids to grow into uncool sick old people, for new kids to see them and realize they will be just like them one day if they smoke. I guess ban on cigarette advertising using cool good looking young models who smoke, in regular commercials as well as in movies, music videos etc. contributed as well. It will take another 40 years for cool kids of today who use TikTok to turn into emotionally and mentally disturbed, illitetate old farts. New kids will see them and decide they do

      • Well a factor in any government is to try to get the best balance of the freedom of the individual and the overall benefit to the community.

        Absolute Freedom is Anarchy, Absolute Control is Tyranny.

        Any Idiot can make an argument that nearly any law is going to restrict someone freedom somehow.
        Also any Idiot can point out how a particular law will be an overall benefit to a community.

        Debates explaining these arguments are relegated to troll and are not informative or provide wisdom.

        The real debate we should d

    • I allow my kids 0 minutes of TikTok a day.

      • Yeah, social media isn't exactly bursting with brain scientists or rocket surgeons.

      • They probably use it secretly. And even if they don't, you're winding them up for an adult life of trying to overcompensate for what you made them miss.

        • Generally habits don't work that way unless you somehow raise the most spiteful of human beings...

          • Forbidding something is the best way to actually encourage a certain habit/behavior.
            No one likes having other human beings stop you from doing something, this is true for kids as it is true for adults.

            Social media is not evil per se and if you use it correctly it can be a good experience. So instead than forbidding TikTok, it makes much more sense to explain to them why you think it is bad, or perhaps, even better, take the time to watch it together with them explaining that not everybody they meet online,

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by fazig ( 2909523 )
              That reverse psychology, works mostly on imbeciles, which kids usually are.
              However, some people are able to grow out of it and learn to think for themselves. Thus we still have a majority of non smoking people despite having made smoking a forbidden fruit to them by their parents, schools, governments.
              Hence what was said above with "They probably use it secretly. And even if they don't, you're winding them up for an adult life of trying to overcompensate for what you made them miss." (which wasn't you) do

            • Your points are semi-fair. Despite their contradictions.

              Saying something is bad without explaining why, is itself little different that forbidding something.

              You go one to say explaining why something is bad is a better position and in this I agree. However, in terms of governance, the explanation would require education reform and that's significant. So sometimes forbidding something as a governing body is easy, despite the rebellious nature you mention.

              Likewise I agree with you about critical thinking but

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by SirSlud ( 67381 )

                This is an excellent nuanced take on prohibition. Much more enlightened than those who cherry pick and reduce their world view to a belief that "prohibition never works" because history of the (understandably failed) alcohol prohibition looms so largely in their cultural environment when they grow up.

                • I think the key is to remember people can react very differently, especially when we consider cultures.

                  Many cultures find it insane how "gun crazy" the us is. That anytime there are measures that seek to add anymore gun control there are open carry protests. Shit asking people to where masks lead to a few open carry protests. In this way, I don't think prohibition works in America in many regards. I think this isn't just because of "individualism" but "individualism defend through 'civil' rebellion". Americ

      • I personally am of the opinion for no mobile usage till around being a teenager and even limited then. However I think I will be more lenient about TV and desktop computers just not to be a hypocrite.

        There is really no reason 40 minutes cannot be educational but I think the issue is the mobility. Much easier to segment TV or desktop access.

    • I agree with you. Ignore the nitpicking of others. The issue is far more in parenting but some countries take on this responsibility and perhaps the more rapid an industrialization/modernization the more this is necessary. Nonetheless, keep up the good work of the hardest job, parenting.

    • ave 4.5 year old young twins myself, they can watch a bit of handpicked tv shows but especially need to play, draw, construct etc in their free time. Sometimes they are begging for more Peppa Pig or Pat and Mat, but once they start playing that disappears

      Yeah, that's what Steve Jobs did with his own kids, yet he still released to the world devices designed to keep kids glued to it, along with an Appstore full of freemium kids' app that demanded money for keeping kids happy (with that same Appstore designed to still display purchasable items, despite attempts by parents to disable in-app purchases, etc. to try to hide those purchasable item, because "courage").

      In the end, it's all about money.

    • Follow the money: Teens will create multiple accounts - the number of user accounts will increase 10 times and then they can claim more for advertisements.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Children are like cats. They have a huge amount of time to spend trying to figure out how to get what they want from you. Resisting is hard work. Possible, but hard. Parents tend to welcome laws like this because it just makes it easier for them.

  • Tik Tok, Tik Tok, you only have 10 minutes left.

  • I thought TikTok... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @10:20PM (#61815927)
    Was the Chinese version of TikTok.

  • And encouraging round the clock for western kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @10:31PM (#61815941)

    China limiting pointless brainsuck time for their own kids to less than 1 hour a day, a healthy level for developing young minds. But get this. At the same time serving continuous near lethal doses of anti-intellectual damage around the clock to western kids. See the plan?

    • Re: And encouraging round the clock for western ki (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2021 @01:10AM (#61816219)

      It's not a plan, it's capitalism. Chinese government sets regulation. Chinese company of course abides while still growing as an international company. America sets no regulation, company does nothing.

      Think about the alternative. China demands the international product limit foreign kids interaction despite no such regulation in their home country. Do you know how pissed people would be?

      See that's your problem, you cannot respect that some people live differently and when they make different choices you except something is bad about it without a second of further reflection...

    • Hey, we taught them that game, back when we shipped opium over.

      Damn, all they can do is copy us...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Right, it's China's fault that your country doesn't have equally tough rules to limit kid's exposure to this stuff. Just like it's Japan's fault for selling you a gas guzzling truck when such vehicles are illegal over there.

  • Mr. Orwell would be proud (Score:3)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @10:39PM (#61815951)

    "Limiting usage of Douyin is a 'proactive measure' by ByteDance to get ahead of potential regulation..."

    Self censorship is the very best kind of censorship.

    • One could easily say proactive healthcare is the best form of healthcare.

      We know there are health issues associated with addictive social media behavior... so a company doing potentially the right thing, is then again seen by the outsider as the wrong thing.

      The better question is will it be effective. Don't the kids use their parents account?

      Or many other issues but again you jump to the conclusion this is censorship when it's time limiting... further exemplifying the confounded reasoning of the western wor

    • You mean like the movie rating system which was put in place by the MPAA before the government could even think about it?

      • That's not a bad comparison, actually. I believe the comic book industry did pretty much the same thing.

        • Pretty much every media. Why do you think you have to go to Japan to get less formulaic storylines?

          • I'm not sure we can spread it out that much. Eventually, you get to a sort of fuzzy line where what's happening isn't self-censorship, but chasing eyes on screens...MBAs running focus groups for every part of a movie, and either shooting or editing it to please the most people. Of course, that's the lowest common denominator, and NEVER leads to anything except bland, formulaic eye candy.

            As an example of that (maybe not the best one, but the one that popped into my head), I'd suggest the first Rambo versus

    • Self-regulation. Let me fix that for you.
  • By limiting the US version to 4 minutes? And at the same occasion, do the same with FB, Instagram, Twatter?

    • To fill the time with what? Reading, poetry, education, theater? The US led the world in mentally debilitating use of one's personal time long before social media was even a thing. Remember Jerry Springer? If social media was curtailed in the US, Americans would simply turn the TV back on.

      • I think these electronic "drugs" are simply a symptom of a much bigger social problem. Shows like "Jerry Springer" and later social media are simply fufilling a demand for a fix to make up for a major shortcoming in people's real lives.

          What needs to be found out is why people are turning to the 'electronic drug' in the first place.

        • My guess at the reason (Score:4, Informative)

          by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Monday September 20, 2021 @11:51PM (#61816079) Journal

          See the book "Bowling Alone", or anything else about social fragmentation.

          Addiction recovery plans involve providing a community for support. That's needed for humans and rats both. Without a community, rats get addicted easily:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
          Given the chance to socialize, though,

          In another experiment, he forced rats in ordinary lab cages to consume the morphine-laced solution for 57 days without other liquid available to drink. When they moved into Rat Park, they were allowed to choose between the morphine solution and plain water. They drank the plain water.

          • That's a very good point.

            The manufactured fear of a terrorist or a common murderer hiding behind every bush has really damaged the trust and very fabric of community in recent years. We are constantly being pumped up with "the nice guy is secretly murdering people in his basement" trope through crime dramas and news stories. While this has been around for a very long time, in recent years they have really amped it up.

            And of course there is the increasing societal stress, meaner general attitudes, more deman

      • The big bad when I was growing up was, of course, computer games - consoles specifically, but games in general as well.

        Lots of media focus on the amount of time kids spent playing computer games rather than going out and playing in the streets...

  • Without a doubt China has gone full blown 1984. Yet I can't help thinking limiting access to social media is a great move for the overall mental sanity of the population.

    Oh well, the Nazi enacted anti-tobacco laws and I'd still rather get lung cancer from smoking than wear lederhoses.

    • I find it funny tbere is all this hubub about "s3c0nDhAnD sMoKe wIlL gIv3 tEh cAnCuR!" when there is far more pollution in the air that is constant. There were great strides made in the past few decades to get air pollution levels down, and I rarely do I choke on car exaust while sitting in traffic unlike 30 years ago, but the levels are still very high and still way more damaging than momentary secondhand smoke.

      And what the "experts" are alarmingly mum on is the increasing stress we have to deal wi

    • Exactly. Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism/Facism whatever you want to call it always inevitably leads to destruction of free will and, if the populous is lucky, revolution. If my action doesn't directly infringe on your rights, then stay the fuck out of it. And if this means an army of mindless robots come and try to take us over, so be it.

    • Yeah, now those teens can go back to their street gangs, smoking, doing drugs, and knocking up their girlfriends instead of all that terrible damage they're doing to themselves watching online videos.

  • You might think this is too much now, but you'll be demanding it soon enough.
  • Because many parents cannot limit kids' screen time.

  • Wait until this shifts to the entire Chinese population. To stop any crimespeak from spreading around too much.

    • I sort of hope this does happen, to make the "for the children" reichbots here in the US shut their traps in an instant.

    • You guys lack brain cells. Go back to eating paint chips.

      time limiting and censorship are two completely different things. China already censors plenty of things but that doesn't mean they need to time limit social media access of adults. By then, they either never excelled and they work too much to have the time or they have achieved a functional part of the Chinese system. The whole purpose of this is to avoid brain drain or people just like you.

    • Do you even hear yourself?

  • That's still like 1000 videos or so, they'll be fine.

  • Once they found out that well rounded educated children disapproved of the party, they decided maybe it's better to Tik Tok, Tik Tok and keep the "Party" going.

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close