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

91–100 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#91

Post by andy_ppp »

atahanacar wrote: post #64
andy_ppp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But society stops minors from doing all sorts of harmful behaviors, like drinking, drugs, gambling, guns etc. I think we should consider limiting the algorithms applied to teenagers at least to being much simpler and maybe not allow personal information to be used. I don't think this is some loss of freedom we need to worry about.

>But society stops minors from doing all sorts of harmful behaviors, like drinking, drugs, gambling, guns etc. None of which affect my freedoms. >not allow personal information to be used I 100% agree with this. If a kid can't consent for anything else, how can they consent for their data being collected and processed? >I don't think this is some loss of freedom we need to worry about. You may not worry, but I do. On…

> It is not the government's or the society's responsibility to babysit your kids

My point is that the government do try to protect children from various harms, why not social media?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#92

Post by [deleted] »

hackerlight wrote: post #89
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?

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#93

Post by hackerlight »

armchairhacker wrote: post #49

I don't necessarily think it's an ethically bad idea, but "banning all children from all social media" is simply impractical for many reasons, including: - You essentially have to check some sort of ID and ban VPNs, banning online privacy which is BAD - The smartest kids are way more tech-savvy than the dumbest adults, so you may end up banning adults too, which is BAD - What will you do to children who get caught? J…

This is ignoring the impact of destroying the network effects. Even if 20% of the kids bypass the laws by accessing social media via VPN, that's no problem, because the negative influence comes from the large network and the fact that all their peers were on social media. If 80% of the cool kids aren't on it anymore, there will be no pressure or desire to participate and engage.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#94

Post by asddubs »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #53
asddubs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have fun uploading a copy of your passport every time you visit a new domain then.

I already plug my own birthday into all my kids accounts when I create them. A lot of sites wont even let you create an account for somebody less than 13

because of COPPA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#95

Post by hunter-gatherer »

tastysandwich wrote: post #75
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As noted by another poster[1]: how are you going to enforce it? The number of comments here that haven’t realized that any regulations would require huge privacy intrusions for everyone is weird to see. It’s like people are imaging some magical set of rules that would only apply to kids but wouldn’t impact themselves negatively.

Totally, that's why I figured it's easier to just ban it for under 18s, then leave it alone for over 18s. I'm an adult - I don't want to be told what I can and can't see. (Obviously, "banning it" is not so clear-cut. Are you going to force Instagram to require that everyone uploads an ID to verify their age?)

To me, it seems the only way to enforce this is to invoke some sort of KYC mandate for social media sites. Obviously, in practice this would only target legitimate companies. So yeah, I think you would simply need to require that people verify their accounts in the same manner that say a Cryptocurrency exchange verifies a person. In such a universe Elon Musk might finally gets all his users to buy a blue mark.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#96

Post by hyperhopper »

brigadier132 wrote: post #82
kevinmchugh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How are you worse off? Also, do we count whatsapp as social media?

Missing invites to parties, social gatherings etc.

Even for not having an iphone I suffer from this, and would miss out on tons more if not for Facebook for event invites, Snapchat/Instagram stories, etc.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#98

Post by marcodiego »

tastysandwich wrote: post #46

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…

> 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.

Ok. Now, how do we counter this very same argument against tv and video games?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#99

Post by htag »

tastysandwich wrote: post #46

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…

> The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive.

I'm sorry, this sentence doesn't explain to me why banning social media is necessary. What are "dopaminergic" effects? Why is it so awful that social media is addictive?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#100

Post by jackvalentine »

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #50

Banning things rarely works. Educating parents on how it can harm and hinder their children is a harder, but more effective approach.

> Educating parents on how it can harm and hinder their children is a harder, but more effective approach.

Is it? There are a number of teachers and allied health professionals in my family and they all say that the majority of parents have zero follow-through on simple things that will materially improve their kids lives.

I can’t imagine the case would be any different with social media education for parents.

Post reply on HN