The case for banning children from social media • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#151

Post by pyuser583 » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:13 AM UTC

49erfangoniners wrote: post #132

htag wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"Please explain everything to me from scratch so I can summarily dismiss anything you say."

The phrase “the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive” is very unclear.

Very few people know what dopaminergic means. It might not be a real word.

“Is not dissimilar from” is a stock phrase used in an academia and by people trying to sound very smart.

The poster included just enough technobabble and stock phrasing to imply they are a specialist. But specialists know when speaking to non-specialists you should avoid technical language and stock phrasing.

So it really just seems the poster was signaling “I am very smart and possibly have a degree in something related and a current on research.”

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#152

Post by Beaver117 » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:15 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #102

Beaver117 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm so tired of this argument. HN and Reddit are not social media. Reddit is very much a "social media". So is HN. Removing photo posting or allowing people to use pseudonyms doesn't exempt a site from being social media. If someone doesn't post photos to Facebook, does that make it not a social media for them? If Facebook decided to allow pseudonyms, would it not be social media?

I don't go to HN or Reddit and get anxiety about all my friends posting about their awesome lives. I go for information only.

Forums, imageboards, and psuedonymous or anonymous places are not the same as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, etc

>If Facebook decided to allow pseudonyms, would it not be social media?

You can name your account anything on Instragram or TikTok, but even so most people will connect it to their real identity, add all their IRL friends, etc. Not the case on HN Reddit or any other forum

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#153

Post by DoItToMe81 » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:38 AM UTC

The only way to apply this "Think of the children"ism is with internet IDs and regulation only the biggest players could afford to run with. No, thanks. I'd much rather parents be parents and (re)grow the spine to say 'No' to the children they're raising.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#154

Post by htag » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:02 AM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #151

49erfangoniners wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Please explain everything to me from scratch so I can summarily dismiss anything you say."

The phrase “the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive” is very unclear. Very few people know what dopaminergic means. It might not be a real word. “Is not dissimilar from” is a stock phrase used in an academia and by people trying to sound very smart. The poster included just enough technobabble and stock phrasing to imply they are a specialist. But specialists know wh…

"Dopaminergic effects" clearly means something along the lines of 'activity of dopamine within the human brain'. I just think we need more than an analogy to reach the conclusion that social media needs to be banned. The sentence "the dopaminergic effects of exercise are not dissimilar to drugs" is equally as true. Clearly dopaminergic effects alone aren't enough to ban something.

When I read that the top comment thought banning social media was clearly necessary I was flabbergasted. I read the comment multiple times looking for a compelling argument. I read the article multiple times looking for a compelling argument too. I'm still struggling on this.

I would really like to read a concise logical argument for why we should ban social media.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#155

Post by htag » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

aynyc wrote: post #33

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.

It seems pretty hysterical that the minimum smoking age is 21 and not 18. Should we just raise the age of adulthood from 18 to 21? We are clearly signaling they are not responsible enough to make some of their own decisions.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#156

Post by hackernewds » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:27 AM UTC

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…

if the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs, and evidently just as bad, why not ban them for adults as well?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#157

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:32 AM UTC

hackernewds wrote: post #156

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…

if the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs, and evidently just as bad, why not ban them for adults as well?

Agreed we should!

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#158

Post by tastysandwich » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:37 AM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #151

49erfangoniners wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Please explain everything to me from scratch so I can summarily dismiss anything you say."

The phrase “the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive” is very unclear. Very few people know what dopaminergic means. It might not be a real word. “Is not dissimilar from” is a stock phrase used in an academia and by people trying to sound very smart. The poster included just enough technobabble and stock phrasing to imply they are a specialist. But specialists know wh…

I'm not a specialist and I'm not in academia. I just sometimes listen to Andrew Huberman's podcast.

Dopaminergic literally means "related to dopamine". It's the first Google result.

And how is the word "dissimilar" academic technobabble?

Let's have good-faith discussions in future as I think this is a really interesting topic :)

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#159

Post by tastysandwich » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

htag wrote: post #154

pyuser583 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase “the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive” is very unclear. Very few people know what dopaminergic means. It might not be a real word. “Is not dissimilar from” is a stock phrase used in an academia and by people trying to sound very smart. The poster included just enough technobabble and stock phrasing to imply they are a specialist. But specialists know wh…

"Dopaminergic effects" clearly means something along the lines of 'activity of dopamine within the human brain'. I just think we need more than an analogy to reach the conclusion that social media needs to be banned. The sentence "the dopaminergic effects of exercise are not dissimilar to drugs" is equally as true. Clearly dopaminergic effects alone aren't enough to ban something. When I read that the top comment tho…

If you're interested in the topic, Jonathan Haidt has written a fair bit on this.

He's got a number of articles if you Google his name, and he's also appeared in a few podcasts (eg Lex Fridman's).

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#160

Post by startupsfail » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:44 AM UTC

hackernewds wrote: post #156

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…

if the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs, and evidently just as bad, why not ban them for adults as well?

HackerNews included?

It does seem like a reasonable solution. A rewind back to the age when it had been just the newsgroups. Without +1 algorithms that result in the algorithm making a choice what users see and not the opposite.

Certainly a better solution, if compared to forcing everyone to show their Real Id, just to verify their age to access the Internet.