wow, I had no idea there was a branch of this post going around with
let's go through this point by point because y'all are pissing me the fuck off.
"it sounds like The Conflict Theory applied to age"
not exactly, but like. close enough. and that is a good and useful thing to do because age is a social system of categorisation, privilege, and marginalisation. childhood is a social class. this is literally the theoretical foundation of the modern field of childhood studies and the first thing you would learn if you ever decided to study these topics in 0.5% of the depth that I have.
"those spaces were built by adults for adults"
no, they were built as semi-public spaces (ie, spaces of public access but not public ownership) which were not initially age-gated in any way, and their early popularity was greatest with teens and young adults.
"seeded by youth transitioning into adulthood, brought into the spaces by the adults who [...] allowed their offspring access"
this is just ahistorical garbage. you're just wrong.
"they do what adults do: start imposing order"
you're actually right about this, in a weird and fucked-up way. the whole point I made in my dissertation is that new forms of public space initially lack clearly defined social order and norms, which is exactly what makes them attractive to young people looking for spaces of freedom and experimentation. when they become subsumed into the larger adult-dominated social order, they lose that quality.
that doesn't mean adults=order/youth=chaos, or that adults bringing these spaces under their control is somehow good - that's just you putting reality through your warped ageist mental framework, which is demonstrated extremely well by:
"other people's offspring are demon spawn that piss you off"
fuck you. the world would be a better place if you had never learned to type.
but at least, having been this blatant with your hatred of children, you can no longer claim ignorance about the aforementioned fact that childhood is a marginalising social class - the truth is you just like it that way.
"it can be argued that the web is a dangerous pseudo-social space where the risk of harm outstrips any parasocial value"
yeah, it can also be argued that the moon is made of pudding.
finally, your whole AO3/Reddit/Tumblr example just translates to "I don't like it when young people act like maybe adults aren't right all the time and don't think adults should always get to make all the rules and own everything"
"kids aren't being outlawed from the internet"
no one said they were. I didn't even say the word "law" in my post.
"even where they are outlawed from social media, it's not working"
good. I think it should work even less.
"the internet is being baby-fied"
this is a nonsense phrase. it doesn't mean anything. ageist millennials sure as fuck love to say it, I swear it's becoming our generation's "you could afford rent if you stop buying avocado toast and having genders". but it doesn't mean anything!!
the closest any real phenomenon is to what you're describing is mainstream social media sites being sanitised by adults who run media companies, for the benefit of adults who spend advertising money, who are afraid of offending adults who don't want their children hearing the word "fuck". take a moment to notice who's not at fault there, and whose priorities are actually being catered to.
"this is not to say kids don't deserve places to hang out and being annoying"
anyone reading this who thinks it's fine to casually define an entire social category of human beings as universally annoying: I hope someone digs a spike trap in your kitchen.
"sites that were created primarily cater to adults"
I'm sorry, you're describing tumblr as that? lol. I think you're confusing "not created specifically as a space-for-children" with "created specifically for adults". this is a pretty common problem, actually, it's called the assumption of public space as adult-by-default, and it's DING DING DING another excellent example of age as a marginalising social structure!
"Preteens 100% should have social spaces"
no one said preteens specifically, but okay
"both irl and online, but we shouldn't create those spaces for them by kicking adults and adult content out of places they created by and for themselves"
no one said that either, but more importantly:
we shouldn't "create those spaces for them" at all, at least not in the heavily curatorial sense you seem to be talking about. that's a big part of this whole issue: that our society wants young people to exist exclusively in spaces that adults design for them. adults are terrified of young people creating their own social environments, their own social norms, their own cultures and orders and ways of being. for the same reason the centre is always scared of the cultures on the margins: because it threatens their order, their power, their privilege.
bonus round: person I'm reblogging this from, via tags:
"pool halls were originally spaces for kids and teens is a hilarious take"
it might have been if I had said that.
as above, "designated as a space-for-children by adults" and "public space popular with young people" have different meanings, which should be easy to tell because they are different words.
"they were simply public spaces owned & operated by adults that may or may not have allowed children in"
and we have another backhanded acknowledgement of age as social class! quick question: how easy do you think it is for a teenager to own and operate a public space and decide whether or not adults are allowed in?
