Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for banning children from social media

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#31

Post by reb »

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #14

There is a real public health issue here. Teen mental health really has fallen off a cliff in the last 10 years, in every measure available. Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety disorders have more than doubled. Suicides of 10-14 year olds have more than doubled. Suicides among 14-19 year olds have gone up ~50%. Hospital admissions for non-fatal self harm in girls 10-14 have ~tripled. It's not just an increa…

Worth calling out here: that "nearly double" rate is specifically for the 10-14 age range; the next group up is up 30–50%.

I say that not to minimize at all... if anything I'm more shocked by this steep rise in younger children.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#32

Post by andreareina »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #27
C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges. Previous attempts to block minors from accessing Web sites via broad legislation, including the Child Online Protection Act, from 1998, have been struck down on First Amendment grounds. You might get farther instead of banning children from social media, ban all ads to children on social media. Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,0…

Hrm. I'm not a big fan of this proposal, but I think that implementation would be technically interesting. Say we create a "this is a child" header, which would be sent with all HTTP requests and would mandate that the user not be tracked or advertised to. Great solution, except that everybody would immediately switch the header on because everybody hates ads. In effect, everybody wants to be a child. So now online s…

The key can attest "the identity associated with this key is over 18" without leaking the identity

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#33

Post by aynyc »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17

And yet another step when it comes to infantilizing American teenagers. It's bizarre how a country that superficially cares so much about freedom treats people who are almost adults like toddlers, increasingly even when they've turned 18. >How you feel about all this will likely come down to whether you believe that social-media platforms are addictive products—like cigarettes— No, the anti-smoking and anti-drinking…

Anti-smoking hysteria is bad? Let's be real here. I can agree on drinking, but not smoking.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#34

Post by amatecha »

C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges. Previous attempts to block minors from accessing Web sites via broad legislation, including the Child Online Protection Act, from 1998, have been struck down on First Amendment grounds. You might get farther instead of banning children from social media, ban all ads to children on social media. Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,0…

Eh, honestly, just go all the way and ban advertising altogether (I would be so happy if this happened, even though it obviously never will). Pretty willing to tank my karma to say this, I don't care, I think advertising is one of the biggest psychological pollutants in modern society and any possible benefit (??) is vastly outweighed by the cognitive waste incurred by all who are subjected to it.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#35

Post by kelipso »

C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges. Previous attempts to block minors from accessing Web sites via broad legislation, including the Child Online Protection Act, from 1998, have been struck down on First Amendment grounds. You might get farther instead of banning children from social media, ban all ads to children on social media. Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,0…

A start would be ban ads that target children, base the rules off the banning of cigarette ads targeted at children. Much easier to implement, I would think.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#36

Post by 876978095789789 »

The case for banning children from social media is stable diffusion and the prospect of perverts taking otherwise normal photos and videos that your children post of themselves (or that you post of them) and making pornography out of it. No parent in 2023 should allow their minor child to use any of these platforms.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#37

Post by djha-skin »

A bill just passed in the state of Utah where I live banning children from social media unless they have their parents permission under 18 years of age.

In addition, the parents must be provided with access to all of the children's messages and posts.

This now means that Facebook has to implement some sort of "are you 18" thing. Don't know how they'll implement that, reminds me of a recent law around porn in Alabama. Requiring a driver's license or some such.

It also means Facebook has to implement a back door of sorts for parents to watch their children. As of the parent of a girl who will soon reach social media age, this seems a bit much to me.

But the technical side of my brain screams, how on Earth are they going to implement this and keep spammers from abusing it.

It changes so many things. Child predators pretending to be 14. Indeed, any kind of anonymity has been largely banned because I have to know how old you are to let you on my site.

And it's not just Facebook it's any sort of social media, including our host.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#38

Post by jedberg »

chatmasta wrote: post #20

If you want to ban your kids from using social media, you don't need to wait for the government to do it for you. Far more dangerous than social media is this increasingly pervasive attitude that the government is responsible for parenting your kids.

I don't think the government should ban social media, but doing it on an individual level won't work. You either turn your kid into a social pariah for being the only one not on social media, or they will just figure out a way to get into it anyway.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#39

Post by atahanacar »

andy_ppp wrote: post #19

It’s essentially manipulation of the dopamine system in the exact same way as casinos except it’s worse because it uses AI to really start personalising what keeps us hooked. Would you let your children become addicted to gambling?

If you don't want your children to become addicted to something, be a good parent and monitor them. It is not the government's or the society's responsibility to babysit your kids.

I don't want my freedoms taken away from me (in this case, freedom to anonymously use social media) just because some people don't have the capability or the motivation to parent their kids properly.

Also, this "what about the children" thing is a very dangerous slippery slope. The same argument is being used by backwards governments around the world to ban anything LGBT related in public.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#40

Post by medion »

Have young kids, they won’t get a phone, tablet or whatever till well into their teens. Tablets are the new pacifier and it’s hard sometimes not to give in for a break.. we allow some limited tv sometimes but only select classic cartoons or documentaries. I cannot see any value at all in social media for kids and I personally cannot believe parents let their kids on TikTok or whatever. It’s wild.
Post reply on HN