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

391–400 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#391

Post by Joeri »

Animats wrote: post #184
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…

> 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…

Ads have very little to do with the harmful effects on minors of social media use.

And besides, banning ads will not prevent social media from trying to lock minors in, either to already have them when they turn 18, or to benefit from peer network effects to rope in more of the 18+ audience.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#392

Post by rsolva »

rsolva wrote: post #208

A new law in the EU will ban showing ads and using personal data for kids. Here in Norway we have had general ban on showing ads to kids for decades, but it was made in the TV age and has not been enforced on social media. We can't outright ban social media (for a lot of different reasons), but we can regulate away the most harmfull aspects. One of the fundemental underlying problems is the lack of good privacy laws.…

Correction: It is illegal to make ads targeted towards children. You can't keep kids from seeing regular "grown up" ads on TV and in public places, but to tailor ads for kids are not OK.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#393

Post by aynyc »

htag wrote: post #155
aynyc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about making choices. Smoking is bad, there is no good outcome from smoking whether you are 8 years old or 80 years old. Age limits, increased taxation are just some ways that our society's way to reduce smoking in general population.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#394

Post by charlieyu1 »

rsolva wrote: post #208

A new law in the EU will ban showing ads and using personal data for kids. Here in Norway we have had general ban on showing ads to kids for decades, but it was made in the TV age and has not been enforced on social media. We can't outright ban social media (for a lot of different reasons), but we can regulate away the most harmfull aspects. One of the fundemental underlying problems is the lack of good privacy laws.…

Now I am a bit curious. Does it mean there were no Kindle or Toysrus or similar ads on TV in Norway?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#395

Post by rendall »

> "The case for banning children from social media"

As a parent, I was looking forward to an article discussing reasons for banning children from social media.

What are the philosophical implications? Mental health? Psychosocial?

Rather, it seems the article begged that particular question and then discussed legal obstacles and consequences instead.

Not the journalist's fault. Misleading headlines are the curse of our age.

I still would love to read an in-depth exploration of the topic of banning children from social media.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#396

Post by wanderingbit »

For those discussing what it looks like for a polity to have a widespread ban on types of certain types of advertising, look no further than the great state of Vermont!

We have not had billboards for as long as I've been alive, and it is great, especially when you head over to NY or Massachusetts and see how tawdry all the billboards look.

Read more about the campaign to ban billboards and Ted Riehle here: https://vtdigger.org/2021/07/11/then-again-vermonts-billboar...

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#397

Post by cornholio »

bsenftner wrote: post #339
jutrewag wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, the subtle aspect you're missing: it is the corporations that created and promote the environment in which the kids abuse one another. It's similar to creating a large park, and then not policing the situation when bullies take over the park, and probably also accepting payments of some kind from the bullies for their extraordinary access to the corporation's "park for people and kids".

But then the bullies park will let you kid in for free and then charge an adult fee for you to retrieve them or supervise them. They still make money either way, so the problem will still exist - an attractive park built for kids which disregards safety.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#398

Post by Joeri »

ojosilva wrote: post #372
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 like the popular saying, "it's the economy, stupid!", when it comes to kids and social media we might as well say "it's the parents, stupid!" > Like so many parents these days, my wife and I have ceded So the parents are to blame here. "Ceded" to what exactly? To your kids unsupervised wishes? Most of the inadequate and harmful use of these addictive social networks is done at home, so, it's your jurisdiction, n…

Show me a reliable way to set a time limit on social media, and I’ll concede the point.

You can set a time limit on particular paths to reach social media, but as I saw with trying to block youtube, it is effectively impossible without blocking it at router level for the whole household. Kids are so creative, and nothing is more fun than subverting digital locks.

I do agree to the point that talking and listening to your kid is key. Kids that don’t feel comfortable showing vulnerability to their parents are at risk in the digital world.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#399

Post by account42 »

meowkit wrote: post #113
marcodiego wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

> 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.

Matchmaking in multi-player games and level scaling in single-player games are somewhat like an individual-centric recommendation algorithm providing you with a constant stream of games that are just hard enough to be engaging and keep you hooked, or at least trying to.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#400

Post by _heimdall »

Animats wrote: post #184
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…

> 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…

There's way too much gray area here for an effective law to ever be defined.

How do you define what is considered an ad here? How is age verified online? What if I have Hulu on TV from my account while my kids is in the room? Are other forms of ads banned as well, like cable TV commercials or billboards? Cereal boxes only use cartoon mascots to advertise to children...so also illegal?

Post reply on HN