Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#51

Post by jdsully » Sun, May 12, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

Ntrails wrote: post #50

jdsully wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK system has survived many hundreds of years and crises far more severe than the US has ever experienced (the US has never been at serious risk of a land invasion). No system of government is without its embarrassments and messes, but the UK's parliament has been battle tested and is proven.

To be fair the current state of the Lords is somewhat different to the historically tested one.

The trend in a lot of parliaments around the world is to remove the upper house. It will be interesting to see the effects of this.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#52

Post by danaris » Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #39

danaris wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving parents unfettered ability to violate their children's privacy does not serve the children's interests. Many parents are abusive. Many children are discovering a sexuality or identity that their parents would find unacceptable. In these cases, and many more, ensuring that the parents can read every single message their children send—and every single website they access—is much more likely to lead to serious ne…

Would such abusive parents get their child a private phone knowing it limits their power over the child? Maybe privacy-respecting tech is one of many solutions to bad parenting. Though I suspect getting to know ones neighbors well would be a far more effective first step.

Many parents are only abusive some of the time. As I understand it, the scenario of abusive some of the time, lavishing with gifts some of the time is actually not that uncommon.

Also, if most or all phones respect the child's privacy, it becomes harder for the parents to get their child a phone that lets them micromanage the child's life.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#53

Post by danaris » Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #49

danaris wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving parents unfettered ability to violate their children's privacy does not serve the children's interests. Many parents are abusive. Many children are discovering a sexuality or identity that their parents would find unacceptable. In these cases, and many more, ensuring that the parents can read every single message their children send—and every single website they access—is much more likely to lead to serious ne…

Many children are also abusive. It doesn't serve their interests either if in their search for identity, they end up bullied or exploited to suicide in secret by their peers. Either way, I get what you're saying, it just sucks that FAANG reserves the right to know our children better than we ever will.

Surely just FANG. Apple is explicitly working to preserve privacy, and has no interest in collecting databases full of information on either us or our children. Indeed, they allow limited parental restrictions on phone use that do not, if I understand correctly, let the parents see and control everything the child can access—rather, it simply restricts what apps they can use, possibly some limits on websites(?), and how much they can use their phone during set parts of the day. A reasonable compromise for most, I would guess.

And they do make one of the more popular types of phone...

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#54

Post by SolaceQuantum » Sun, May 12, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

jdsully wrote: post #26

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe 1/2 of congress is trying to subpoena information (the house) but the actual people who are responsible for obeying that subpoena are refusing to- and at the same time, those people are the people responsible to enforce any law to punish them for refusing subpoena. So they can essentially ignore congress's demands with no consequences. I think this has always been the case but hasn't happened so distinctly…

Congress has the power to "arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses". The fact that this isn't being seriously considered is further evidence of the erosion of real power congress has. For an example of what this looks like refer to the Sargent at Arms arresting someone in possession of Facebook documents the UK parliament wanted: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...

So what happens if the Sargent Of Arms says no? And that the entire judiciary branch says ‘yeah we’re not gonna arrest this guy’?