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

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#471

Post by BeFlatXIII » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:14 PM UTC

hunter-gatherer wrote: post #95

tastysandwich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, that's why I figured it's easier to just ban it for under 18s, then leave it alone for over 18s. I'm an adult - I don't want to be told what I can and can't see. (Obviously, "banning it" is not so clear-cut. Are you going to force Instagram to require that everyone uploads an ID to verify their age?)

To me, it seems the only way to enforce this is to invoke some sort of KYC mandate for social media sites. Obviously, in practice this would only target legitimate companies. So yeah, I think you would simply need to require that people verify their accounts in the same manner that say a Cryptocurrency exchange verifies a person. In such a universe Elon Musk might finally gets all his users to buy a blue mark.

Such regulations would drive me to use only foreign-owned shady companies who do not care about US law. I'd be sure to spread the word to my fellow citizens.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#472

Post by scythe » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:15 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #426

djhn wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the ability to show ads is the only reason to allow the youth on the apps. Remove the commercial reason for brainwashing kids, and the rest will probably sort itself out (I guess is the logic)

Addicting kids to the platform such that you can show ads to them when they turn 18 seems to have obvious value.

To some degree. But addiction describes a range of behavioral symptoms with a variety of durations and dynamics. The expected return of designing platforms to entertain 17-year-olds will decrease a little, but the expected return of designing a platform to entertain 13-year-olds will decrease a lot. By the time the latter group is monetizeable, they might move to a competitor's platform — just as prescription painkiller addicts have an easy time substituting heroin when they find it's cheaper.

One thing that's particularly convenient for regulators in this case is the tendency of adolescents to deliberately change their behavior as they approach adulthood in order to reinforce a sense of personal growth. 18-year-old me didn't want much to do with games and movies for 13-year-olds.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#473

Post by BeFlatXIII » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:16 PM UTC

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #380

XorNot wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Require by law that everyone on social media authenticates their age (maybe also their names, this would be good way to get rid of bots as well). This can be done with government ID or with via your bank or even with requiring social security number when creating an account. Or government can just make a new digital ID system that you have to go and register at whatever place is suitable for this and you can use that…

1. How would such verification work on foreigners, who have no social security number?

2. How would "social media" be defined if you want to ban it?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#474

Post by guelo » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

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 too thin of a line between ads and algorithmic feeds.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#475

Post by drc500free » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

cabalamat wrote: post #303

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 - 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 totally forgotten about. A good start would be to ban feeds based on algorithms; instead your feed would be a chronological list of new posts from channels you've chosen to follow.

So ban HN?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#476

Post by dustedcodes » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

fernandotakai wrote: post #469

andrekandre wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. what is the definition of social media? does that include messaging apps? > 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. any places (countries) where this…

that's my problem with social media bans for children. how the fuck do we do it? "just id check" -- hey, what if i don't want my social media tied to my personal account for any reason? let's say i'm an atheist and my family is quite religious? or what if i'm gay and i don't want to show it to the world while expressing myself through social media?

> "just id check" -- hey, what if i don't want my social media tied to my personal account

Your ID (driving license or whatever) is not your personal account.

> let's say i'm an atheist and my family is quite religious

Ok, so what? LOL people have different beliefs, only because you are an atheist you don't have to troll your family members on social media. You wouldn't do that in real life with your family so why do you feel the need on social media? I don't understand the issue which you're trying to raise here. Just be an atheist, so what. Social media is not subdivided into religious cults so you can mingle happily amongst other people from other beliefs, no issue there!

> or what if i'm gay and i don't want to show it to the world while expressing myself through social media

Then don't? Again, I don't get the issue here. If you don't want to express your gayness publicly then just don't do it. It's your choice. Nobody forces you to upload your dirty videos with your partner to social media.

Social media is a platform for real people to connect, not for anonymous trolls to shout some bullshit into the void. If you don't like that then perhaps social media as it was originally intended is not a platform for you. It seems you want it to be something that it isn't. We have 4chan, Reddit and other things where you can probably much better exhibit these desires.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#477

Post by Joker_vD » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #463

Animats wrote: post #184

Earlier 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 clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff > It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Vested interests are precisely why it is hard.

He probably meant "it's not complicated" because it really is not complicated, it's just hard, the same way e.g. weight-lifting is simple but hard.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#478

Post by Joker_vD » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #417

blitz_skull wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that’s the status quo already. Parents who understand the inherent risks, probably already stop their children from using it. Legislation would benefit children who were born to parents who do not understand the risks.

If parents are okay with their kids using social media, I'm not sure that I should have the right to tell them otherwise. How would a ban even work though, without ultimately depending on parent intervention? Companies could throw up a "are you over 18?" banner, but those don't work. They could go full KYC and require users to provide government issued IDs, but that feels like a drastic step away from privacy and dat…

If some parents are okay with their kids smoking and drinking and peddling drugs, are you still not sure that you (or rather, "the state") should have the right to tell them otherwise?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#479

Post by InCityDreams » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #28

debacle wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

This would require Nato++ cooperation between many, many agencies - and, at every stage. Unworkable.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#480

Post by cowl » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

djhn wrote: post #412

Joeri wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the ability to show ads is the only reason to allow the youth on the apps. Remove the commercial reason for brainwashing kids, and the rest will probably sort itself out (I guess is the logic)

The problem is what is an Ad? Is the Cryptobro shilling for the coin of the week an Ad? is the Influencer that "casually" is using her brand of Mascara while talking an Ad? Do creators need to have two versions of the same video (one with promotion, one without)? Most ads now are difficult to tell apart from content. Is this review really a review or content length ad?