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

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#491

Post by PM_me_your_math » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

amatecha wrote: post #34

C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> 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…

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.

Yes, who needs an economy.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#492

Post by Scalene2 » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:44 PM 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…

Dopamine addiction is a myth.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#493

Post by yamtaddle » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:45 PM 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…

The dragnet spying that forms the core of social networks' business model ought simply be illegal. It's disgusting and tremendously dangerous. That'd help a lot—by destroying some of the companies, and removing many of their worst incentives.

Also, they shouldn't be able to launder responsibility for editorial choices by saying "an algorithm did it!" and hiding behind laws meant to protect email and IM providers and web hosting companies and ISPs and such.

I expect that combo'd fix a lot of problems.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#494

Post by gspencley » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

> How you feel about all this will likely come down to whether you believe that social-media platforms are addictive products—like cigarettes—marketed to kids or that they are vital and intractable parts of the national conversation.

No that doesn't affect how I feel it about it at all.

I raised two daughters whose lives overlapped with the existence of social media, but who were well into their teens before everyone and their dog started using it. When they were young we asked our family to abstain from uploading pictures of them to the Internet because we wanted them to decide how much online presence they wanted for themselves when they were old enough.

I do sympathize with parents today, who have to deal with the fact that "all the other kids" are on SM and even some misguided teachers will undoubtedly ask that certain assignments be completed that require the use of SM.

But I still think this is 100% a matter for private households. Despite the fact that I would feel for my children if we subjected them to the "FOMO" of not being on SM, and despite the fact that I'm sure they'd find a way to get around our decrees if they really wanted to, it's just not the government (or anyone else's) place to parent my children for me and so people can (and should) do what they think is best for themselves and their families but can also fuck right the hell off if they want to impose any sort of parental decision on me with respects to media consumption or use of technology.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#495

Post by dustedcodes » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #442

dustedcodes wrote: post #365

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. 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…

> 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…

  > what is the definition of social media? does that include messaging apps?

Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter & Co

It's not messaging apps, or HN or a pet forum. Yes some of the other apps/sites have similarities, but those similarities are not greater than the similarities between the Nike or Victoria Secret online shopping page for Brazilian bikinis and an adult site. If we can distinguish the latter than it's also possible for us to find an easy way to distinguish the former.

  > any places (countries) where this was instituted and worked out as you describe?

Any places (countries) where this was instituted and it didn't work out as I described?

  > they don't?

No, they don't. Whistleblowing has nothing to do with social media. You can already anonymously contact a journalist and leak information in a secure way, in fact using social media for whistleblowing would already be the dumbest way of doing it amongst all other ways of how someone could do it.

  > and what if you don't have access to a journalist....?

If you don't have access to a telephone or the internet and email then I guess you board the next ship which will fly to Earth and visit an internet cafe.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#496

Post by eimrine » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #276

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…

That solution fails to sidestep the not minor issue of how do we determine it's a child online brought up by the article.

> how do we determine it's a child online

Why not use passport verification for any enough big social network? Anyway there is almost impossible to use them anonymously.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#497

Post by eimrine » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #342

DoreenMichele wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That solution fails to sidestep the not minor issue of how do we determine it's a child online brought up by the article.

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?

Who will test a maturity of maturity test developers? They will be kind of a shaping factor for a society.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#498

Post by diffeomorphism » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:53 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #391

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…

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.

Ads have everything to do with because they are the incentives shaping social media.

> will not prevent....

While "first drugs are free" is not unheard of, e.g. "gratis" licenses for schools, I think you vastly overestimate the willingness for long term investment. E.g. if the law says "no ads for under 18", they might stomach the costs for 16, 17, but starting at 13? 5 years of "gratis, adfree"? No change at all? You think so?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#499

Post by mock-possum » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:54 PM UTC

jutrewag wrote: post #316

walrus01 wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

Just go try going back and telling that to yourself as a teenager. Can you imagine?

“Sorry jutrewag I know these are your formative years, but I’m going to need you to put off that formation until an arbitrary date that I and the rest of the adults have decided upon without any input from you or your peers.”

It sounds about as backwards and ridiculous as decreeing puberty blockers until they turn 18 - part of growing up is establishing your own “identity.” The reason that ‘18’ feels like an early candidate for adulthood is because you’ve spent all your time as a teenager up until that point establishing your own “identity” and it’s time for that “identity” to be put to the test in the ‘real world.’

You don’t just become an adult, you arrive there after a long bumpy period of growth, and delaying that growth only serves to delay adulthood. Establishing an identity is essential to that growth. You need to give kids time to figure themselves out. You need to give their bodies and minds time to grow before you call them adults.

In other words you do not ‘choose’ your identity once you become an adult - rather you settle on sexuality after years of experimentation and exploration.

I know you probably aren’t thinking of it that way, but speaking from experience as a former queer teen (lately queer adult) what you are describing is oppression, being denied the opportunity to develop along a ‘normal’ timeline compared to your peers.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#500

Post by naasking » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:54 PM 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…

> 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.

This is greatly exaggerated, if not outright false:

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2023/04/addicted-to-social...

Which is not to say social media isn't harmful, but let's refrain from imputing pseudoscientific explanations for the dangers.