As a parent, there is no way I'm aware of keeping an eye (remotely) on their Watch history with Youtube kids. https://dabase.com/blog/2023/youtube-kids/#watch-history
The controls are broken.
The case for banning children from social media
311–320 of 593 posts
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#312> 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.
While I'd like this, the YouTube 'made for kids' debacle shows that neither legislators nor platform owners can be trusted to implement this in a sane fashion.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Make it illegal to show ads to kids. You don't have to make "kid" identification airtight, because few people of any age want to opt into ads. The ad industry was very upset when the American Psychological Association proposed this back in 2004.[1] This doesn't raise constitutional issues because ads are con…
Another problem is the definition of "ad". Is kid playing with fancy toys is an ad? Is product placement in movie an ad? How and who will determine if this is and ad or not?
"did the company selling the thing pay for any part of it" seems like a good enough place to start.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#314I 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…
> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Make it illegal to show ads to kids. You don't have to make "kid" identification airtight, because few people of any age want to opt into ads. The ad industry was very upset when the American Psychological Association proposed this back in 2004.[1] This doesn't raise constitutional issues because ads are con…
What problem does that fix? It’s not particularly the corporations that are a bad influence on the kids, it’s their own peer group.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Make it illegal to show ads to kids. You don't have to make "kid" identification airtight, because few people of any age want to opt into ads. The ad industry was very upset when the American Psychological Association proposed this back in 2004.[1] This doesn't raise constitutional issues because ads are con…
"It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests." Yeah, this is what makes regulating anything hard or pointless, if the "vested interests" are powerful enough.
This is primarily a problem in American where bribing politicians is seen as a fundamental freedom for corporations.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#316A 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.…
The Utah law is a back-door to Christian/Mormon fundamentalists who want to enforce religious doctrine and parental control over teenagers who are attempting to establish their own identities. This will be disastrous for any teenager in Utah who doesn't meet the local-region-socially-acceptable stereotype of a normal person, such as LGBTQ. All that I can see is even more ex-Mormon teenagers who cut off their parents…
Good. You can establish your own “identity” when you’re an adult at 18. I don’t have a religious bone in my body but I wish this law was made effective nationwide.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
With HN and other sites with a non-personalized feed, at least what you see is the same as what everyone else sees. And if there's voting, which isn't perfect, it's based on community feedback.
How hard is it to add "upvotes" to TikTok and fake that it is based on community feedback? How do you know that HN isn't personalized for you?
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Utah law is a back-door to Christian/Mormon fundamentalists who want to enforce religious doctrine and parental control over teenagers who are attempting to establish their own identities. This will be disastrous for any teenager in Utah who doesn't meet the local-region-socially-acceptable stereotype of a normal person, such as LGBTQ. All that I can see is even more ex-Mormon teenagers who cut off their parents…
Good. You can establish your own “identity” when you’re an adult at 18. I don’t have a religious bone in my body but I wish this law was made effective nationwide.
Thankfully, America is not yet operating in the political reality of The Handmaid's Tale, much as you might wish it to be so.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Instagram posts are ads, whether actual advertisements or not. This would be almost impossible to enforce.
Actually, it would be quite simple. - Record a social media site advertising to a user who is under XX years old. Complain to a portal. - Fine $1000 x complaint received each month. - Continue to do so until the service's accounts satisfy some sort of auditing standard. Come on, we do this for all kinds of things like credit card information and other data certifications.
You're targeting this at the wrong end. Fine the advertisers for buying the ad space, not the platforms for showing it. Make disclosure of recipients of advertising expenditure mandatory for tax purposes. Hiding advertising expenditure? Fraud. Failure to disclose? Well, you don't get tax write-offs on undisclosed expenses, so nobody would do that.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. I'm pretty sure ads paid for the vast majority of useful websites that have ever existed, including sites like youtube which just wouldn't exist without them. I tend to think a vast proportion of the freely available i…
If something can't exist in a usable non-destructive form then it simply shouldn't exist. "oh we'll never have routine international flight if we price in all externalities" yeah that kinda fucking sucks oh well RIP vacations to europe.
Same deal here basically. "without brain-melting ads that warp our deepest psychic desires into weapons against us we'd never have wikipedia" idk if that's true, doesn't feel true to me, if so though then RIP wikipedia sorry. This shit sucks, if we can't make it not suck we should make it not be.