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

111–120 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#111

Post by Mr-Frog »

marcodiego wrote: post #98
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?

I would say that the main difference is that most modern social media apps use adaptive learning algorithms to curate an intentionally addictive feed. Traditional TV is not personally adaptive and video games with lootboxes have a comparable dopamine impact and have been seeing (justifiable) regulation.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#112

Post by rysertio »

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?

> How are you worse off?

Everyone in my middle school used social media to know when to submit assignments, class schedules etc. Without social media you're going to be left out.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#113

Post by meowkit »

marcodiego wrote: post #98
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?

Video games nowadays are just as bad.

Children don't really watch TV (anecdotally). They watch YouTube, which is just as bad.

The key difference between television and video games of yore is the feedback loop. TV and video games were one shot deployed and then ratings were gathered after, averaging across the entire audience.

Now YT and video games don't have end states - same thing as social media. While you often won't have individual-centric recommendation algorithms in a video game, you have dark patterns and gambling mechanics in all the most popular games which is just as bad.

The argument really isn't that we need to ban children from social media, we need to guard their dopaminergic regulation the way we guard their physical and mental health... oh wait.

Ultimately its the responsibility of the parent (at least in the US). Parents who are aware of the pitfalls of high-dopamine-low-effort activities, poor diet, and low physical activity are going to guard against these things. The ones who don't will likely suffer later in life.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#114

Post by chatmasta »

jedberg wrote: post #38
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.

Ok, I'll amend my statement to mention an even more dangerous and increasingly pervasive attitude: the government should parent your kids, so I can parent my kids!

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#115

Post by htag »

I am coming to the conclusion that my opinion on this subject is unpopular.

I don't think it's a desirable thing for the government to regulate what type of software or speech happens on the internet, or runs on private silicon. Additionally, I don't like when the government takes on traditionally parental roles. Why are we all cheering on Washington to regulate the internet?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#116

Post by benjaminwootton »

Beaver117 wrote: post #79
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #52

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.

Addiction and status anxiety are arguably the worst things about social media, and they definitely exist here on HN.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#117

Post by _8j50 »

If I was the government I would set up a social media use authorization portal and demand social media companies with over 1k monthly active users require their users to take a randomly generated challenge code, take it to the government portal and have it signed and submit the signed challenge in order to register (this would be a smooth UX with popup taking you to the gov portal and back), the gov portal would not ask for authentication, just a clear picture of your id. It will not allow vpns and such and if you presented fake id the that would be a crime.

Now where my policy differs is that I would not prevent kids from using social media, they can still show a school id and their school or parent would need to approve and taken on that legal obligation of presenting valid id. But the critical part is that kids 14-17 and 10-13 each would have their own social media. They can join facebook for example but facebook has to prevent them from coming to contsct with adults and their content or things like adult news feeds and advertisments. Similarly advertisers would become legally liable if they advertise content that steers children to a harmful end. Social media companies must also prove that their algorithms are explicitly tuned to prevent addiction if minors to the platform and even enforce maximum legal usage hours (2h for 10-13 and 6h for 14-17).

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#118

Post by slothtrop »

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…

> But it was clearly different back then

If you go back far enough. I think in part we see forums through rose-tinted glasses. Moderation was looser than people are accustomed to now, and I've seen several taken over by conspiracy nuts. Some still make friends online almost the exact same way, using discord or whatever. I've been a part of communities, but never made "friends" online. The idea is a farce to me.

I was an "always-online" teenager. That was a mistake, but I didn't know then, Neither did parents. Just as no one knew that frequently watching pornography could lead to problems. Internet access and culture led to a brave new world.

You can pin certain issues more specifically to modern social media (e.g. endless scroll), but it's deeper than that. Most of what is identified as addicting content is an extension of what existed before, but with a far larger pool people accessing it.

At any rate - banning is redundant. Parents are apparently receptive to to the idea that it could pose a problem, to a neurotic level for some. This is a new idea. Let them do their jobs.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#119

Post by mixmastamyk »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #104

Or, one could consider the crazy option of letting parents exercise at least some modicum of decision-making on how their children live their lives. I can understand much of the disgust with social media as it is today, but some of these arguments spin off so far into emotional reactionary vitriol that they lose whole forests for meager trees about the larger dangers of laws deciding such minutia for parents.

Try making the decision that your child will not use social media and watch what happens.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#120

Post by atahanacar »

andy_ppp wrote: post #91
atahanacar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

The reasoning is simple: If it were the government's responsibility to babysit your kids, it would be acceptable for them to restrict my freedoms in doing so. However, it is neither their, society's nor my responsibility, so my freedoms shouldn't be restricted for that cause. If it doesn't restrict my freedoms, I don't care, government can do whatever parents want, whether it be ban the sale of alcohol to kids, stop them from gambling or whatever.
Post reply on HN