81–90 of 593 posts
Computers are fine, as long as they're offline.
Countless generations of kids have grown up fine in these conditions. We already know being online is bad for them.
What are we waiting for?
I just don't see any alternatives to banning social media, perhaps even up to the age of 18. The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff - especially in our highly polarised political climate. The right will immediately target "wokeness", and the left will immediately target "hate speech". And the kids will be…
Social media is unlike drugs in that if you abstain while your peers use you're in some ways worse off. I wonder if there's a narrower ban to be had, either on image usage or especially on filters
I just don't see any alternatives to banning social media, perhaps even up to the age of 18. The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff - especially in our highly polarised political climate. The right will immediately target "wokeness", and the left will immediately target "hate speech". And the kids will be…
Why ban at all? Enforcing it is an issue. Privacy-intrusion is a given for everyone, not just kids. It probably would not work, similarly to any related bans. Again, why ban at all? Let the parents do the parenting... I guess? Or ban having sex without the use of contraceptives if you are so keen on banning.
The best you can do is try to explain and contextualise everything your kid might be seeing, which is very hard to do.
Also, not all parents are engaged with their kids as well as they should be. Having bad parents doesn't mean you're not worth protecting.
> Or ban having sex without the use of contraceptives if you are so keen on banning.
I'm not sure what that means.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always baffling to see suggestions like this on HN: > Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,000 fine. > If you do that, social media companies will figure out how to keep kids from accessing their site. Do you really want to live in a world where every website forces you to log in and verify your state-issued ID? I think some people see the words “social media” and assume it only applies to sites they d…
I'm so tired of this argument. HN and Reddit are not social media. Is your real name Pragmatic Pulp? Do you post pictures/videos of yourself here, or update us about your family? I could go on but I hope you get it. "Social Media" is a really specific term and it doesnt mean any random forum.
At least on wikipedia, the definition for "social media" doesn't include real names, or posting stuff about your life specifically.
>Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks.[1][2] While challenges to the definition of social media arise[3][4] due to the variety of stand-alone and built-in social media services currently available, there are some common features:[2]
>1. Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.[2][5]
>2. User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media.[2][5]
>3. Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social media organization.[2][6]
>4. Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.[2][6]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always baffling to see suggestions like this on HN: > Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,000 fine. > If you do that, social media companies will figure out how to keep kids from accessing their site. Do you really want to live in a world where every website forces you to log in and verify your state-issued ID? I think some people see the words “social media” and assume it only applies to sites they d…
I'm so tired of this argument. HN and Reddit are not social media. Is your real name Pragmatic Pulp? Do you post pictures/videos of yourself here, or update us about your family? I could go on but I hope you get it. "Social Media" is a really specific term and it doesnt mean any random forum.
not everyone stays pseudonymous.
It isn't. Not if you want to serve the whole world, or even very much of the world. And not if you don't want to create a panopticon where everything anybody does is associated with everything else that person does, and nothing is ever, ever anonymous.
There are a bunch of sleazy "age verification" companies out there claiming they can do it. They can't, but they've spent years lobbying governments all over the world to get it required.
All "ban children from X" ideas are non-starters because the damage from creating the ability to know who was a child would greatly exceed any possible benefit. Assuming there was any benefit to begin with.
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?
The problem is worse because it's not up to the parents. Even if the kids opt out, they will now feel excluded because all their peers are on social media, they will still be a victim of the gossip mills and other nastiness present on social media even if they're not directly participating. That's why a blanket-wide ban for under-18s or under-16s is necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always baffling to see suggestions like this on HN: > Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,000 fine. > If you do that, social media companies will figure out how to keep kids from accessing their site. Do you really want to live in a world where every website forces you to log in and verify your state-issued ID? I think some people see the words “social media” and assume it only applies to sites they d…
I'm so tired of this argument. HN and Reddit are not social media. Is your real name Pragmatic Pulp? Do you post pictures/videos of yourself here, or update us about your family? I could go on but I hope you get it. "Social Media" is a really specific term and it doesnt mean any random forum.