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

361–370 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#361

Post by master-lincoln »

XorNot wrote: post #344
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is pretty silly arguments. People love to say that the war on drugs didn't work, but I for one haven't consumed illegal drugs even though I have been curious at times. Since I haven't spent time with people who regularly break the law I have not been introduced to any element where I could have had access to illegal drugs. So war on drugs has worked at least on me and I live under to illusion that I am s…

I reiterate my first question: how are you going to enforce it? Because the war on drugs has a very specific enforcement mechanism: people who take drugs are given criminal records, locked up in prison, and have their future opportunities permanently curtailed. Is this your plan for an under-18 accessing social media? Do you think a policy of "we're going to help teens with their mental health" is going to accomplish…

Of course it would be the parents getting criminal records and being locked up, not the kids (or whoever enabled access)

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#362

Post by ok_dad »

sssilver wrote: post #352
ok_dad wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, and I'm fine with that. Children's media shouldn't be funded by corporate advertising directed at the children, period. I don't care what kind of sledgehammer that takes to the ad industry, I care about the children's well-being. Next, let's ban all advertising, is what I'm thinking.

I just realized that banning blatant advertisement may be one of the most effective measures to help slow down the reckless consumption of natural resources

Imagine if people didn't think they needed 27 hilarious t-shirts they'll never wear or wear once, a tool to cut an apple into slices (plus one for all the other fruits and veg), plastic bags for everything they pack for their kids, toys that will go on the pile of other toys, a new phone and car each year, 137 pairs of sneakers, etc.

Not to mention no longer getting ear-and-eye-fucked with billboards, pop-ups, required logins, and product placements in media! Oh man, I would (almost) give up my only kid to have this dream come to fruition!

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#363

Post by bsenftner »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #343
bsenftner wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's about we start testing for maturity, and despite a person being 45 years of age, their maturity tests to be 12 years of age, so no social media for them. That would actually be significantly better for everyone involved. But who can trust anyone with a "maturity test" and then who can be trusted to administer said test honestly? Perhaps our entire society is immature and nobody deserves social media?

Perhaps our entire society is immature ...and it's time we grew tf up.

This is, in my opinion, a serious issue facing the human race today: we have a material number of flat out immature adults, and some of those immature idiots (looking at you Elon, and you Murdock, and many more) are far too powerful for their childish insatiable minds.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#364

Post by watwut »

unixgoddess wrote: post #225

Few months ago there was some sort of challenge on tiktok, most kids at my local middle school arrived to school with self-inflicted bruises on the face. With this shit, if you don't do it too you are out of the group and goodbye social life. Social media are preying on the group-belonging instincts of kids with tremendous damage not only on the kids themselves, but on society as a whole. However, it's up to parents…

You would not believe stupid crap and self harm my peers engaged in 25 years ago, before any of us had phones. Self-inflicted bruise or bruises to impress other boys were a thing among some kids.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#365

Post by dustedcodes »

andrepd wrote: post #358
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…

> just ban it I don't disagree, but how do you propose we do that exactly?

Everyone must do an ID check when signing up to social media. If you are not an adult yet then your account will be locked until you become 18. This would also eliminate all the bots and fake people or double/triple anonymous accounts which are trying to game the algorithm to push for certain toxic agendas. Nobody should be anonymous on social media. Social media is to connect with humans, not with trolls or bots, so being anonymous is an oxymoron to being social in the sense of social media. Whistleblowers, which often get mentioned, don't need to be anonymous on social media. We have journalists and whistleblowers can already anonymously reach out to journalists and leak information so that journalists can publicise it under the protections of their profession.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#366

Post by DoreenMichele »

bsenftner wrote: post #363
DoreenMichele wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps our entire society is immature ...and it's time we grew tf up.

This is, in my opinion, a serious issue facing the human race today: we have a material number of flat out immature adults, and some of those immature idiots (looking at you Elon, and you Murdock, and many more) are far too powerful for their childish insatiable minds.

I don't disagree with that.

I just don't think banning people from the internet is the answer.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#367

Post by rfgh »

MandieD wrote: post #262
jen20 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there is a unified campaign that can attract both poles of US society, they’d need to be targeted at each individually.

Addressing center-left, middle-class women (like myself): "Worried about your son being sucked into the incel movement because he watched some video game playthroughs? Concerned that your daughter's depression is being driven by the unrealistic standards of femininity that influencers are pushing into her Instagram feed? Is your kid a zombie after spending more than a few minutes on TikTok? Did your mother become irr…

But what if arguing with strangers on the internet is a hobby that you derive much enjoyment and fulfilment from?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#368

Post by pevey »

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 main goal of raising children, after keeping them alive, is teaching them the skills they need to survive and (hopefully) thrive in their world. These skills have changed over time and vary based on environment, society.

Today, that means teaching kids how to cope with social media. It is in their world. It’s not going away. As a parent, I can understand the temptation to just want to ban it. I wish I could ban a lot of things I would rather my kids not have to deal with. But parenting just doesn’t work like that. They need to learn to deal with it, and it’s my job to try my best to help them do that.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#369

Post by joenot443 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #328
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that isn't as clear-cut as it seems. It isn't just the company that you need to include. Does your company produce ads for the company that produces Proprietary Toy and get money if they sell more products? Does your company supply batteries for Battery Operated Proprietary Toy? Does your store sell either Proprietary Toy? And so on.

It really is though. > Does your company produce ads There it is, don't do that. All these other questions are also just "yes." You're looking for nuance where there isn't any. Sponsorship is ads, product placement is ads, giving free product to influencer to review is ads. There are certainly edge cases some of them likely to be thorny but none of the things either of us has mentioned so far are them.

I think there’s absolutely nuance here and pretending “make it illegal for kids to see ads” is a simple or even attainable solution is a bit naive I think.

What about product placement? Nearly every movie in Hollywood from the past 40 years has some level of product placement, so under this new law we’ll either go back and edit it out or slap an R rating on it? How about arena ads or billboards? Special AR headsets for teens which will block ads from sight? It’s a silly hypothetical, of course, but you did just say that it’s a hypothetical without nuance.

I think it’s easier to imagine a world where advertising is outlaws entirely than one where we specifically shield it only for those underage.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#370

Post by cykros »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #66
XorNot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As noted by another poster[1]: how are you going to enforce it? The idea of banning people from seeking things they want to do to themselves is incredibly stupid with the "War on Drugs" and it's equally stupid here with all the same consequences: a sudden explosion of either unregulated social media alternatives (back in the day Napster had a chat function even), or suspiciously immature "18 year olds" on Facebook an…

> 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.

Best way to enforce it is to do what the Fed's doing currently: crash the economy, dry up the advertising dollars, and make the advertising platforms wither on the vine.

Let's just hope they don't take too many banks down with 'em in the process.

Post reply on HN