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

511–520 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#511

Post by [deleted] »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #498
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.

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? Yo…

[deleted]

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#512

Post by Levitz »

whatever1 wrote: post #232
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…

Computer games are also addictive. Back in my days soccer and basketball were addictive as well. I vividly remember my grandpa despising my uncle for having obsession with playing soccer and not spending more time on his homework. It seems like a pattern, grown ups just don’t like the way youngsters are spending their time. Maybe it’s totally normal in your teens to just spend aimlessly time in seemingly useless thin…

>It seems like a pattern, grown ups just don’t like the way youngsters are spending their time.

Thing is, people of all ages are using social media. Grownups recognize it as dangerous to themselves too.

I really think this is less of a rock and roll situation and more of a tobacco situation.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#513

Post by bumby »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #508
vincnetas wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not a problem. This question has already been asked and is settled. Programmers tend get caught up with definitions and "loopholes". Laws don't care. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1494:_Insurance

To be generous to the OP, they may not be looking for "hacks" or "loopholes" but rather clarity. Vague laws tend to be bad laws.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#514

Post by Levitz »

uptownfunk wrote: post #485
chongli wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install a userscripts extension in your browser and with that install a userscript such as Focused YouTube [1]. I did and never looked back! I want nothing to do with TikTok or YouTube shorts. I watch long-form videos on science, math, and engineering topics for the most part. [1] https://github.com/KervynH/Focused-YouTube

Does this work for mobile?

Firefox started supporting userscripts through Tampermonkey a couple of months ago.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#515

Post by lucumo »

jmathai wrote: post #461
lucumo wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The time limits take pretty good care of that, here. I really don't mind them watching braindead stuff for a limited time. Especially so if that's the price for watching something interesting too. It's also slightly curated, with age limits on videos provided by YouTube, but I mostly care about that to weed out shock videos and extreme violence.

Agree all kids are different. Our daughter is less affected than our son. But in both cases, they are happier and more creative (as kids should be) when we remove devices altogether. I’m not sure what curation you’re talking about. YouTube kids is just ads, for example. It’s not violent, but it’s also not … not ads.

YT Kids (the app at least) has a setting where only videos and channels are allowed that are whitelisted by the parent. We used to limit it to stuff from BBC Cbeebies, Numberblocks & Alphablocks, Sesame Street, Disney, and similar stuff in their own language and in English.

I think nowadays we just limit it to the age restrictions (<=4, 5-8, 9-12), so they don't see stuff that gives them nightmares. Everything else can be taken care of with the time limit.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#516

Post by AlexandrB »

gspencley wrote: post #494

> 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…

> intractable parts of the national conversation

Lol. The "national conversation" you experience in a typical social media thread is a lot of name calling and implying that your political opponents are fascists, pedophiles, or both. SnR is extremely low even for minor, local political issues.

Political discussion on social media is a pure entertainment product.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#517

Post by avgcorrection »

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 don’t know what “dopaminergic” is but processed sugar is like a drug to kids (pre-teen kids). And you would never be able to ban that (for pre-teens).

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#518

Post by Levitz »

goatlover wrote: post #389
snapdeus wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking causes severe societal ills and is unhealthy in any amount. Everyone should indeed stop drinking. We should tax alcohol until it is unaffordable for the vast majority.

I'm glad the vast majority of people disagree with you. I will continue to drink when I want to. Everyone should not stop drinking.

The world would be better off without widespread use of alcohol. It's not even a question, everything else similar, a society that chooses not to drink alcohol would have a social, economical, and psychological edge over one which does. Individuals are better off if they don't drink, it's just not good.

I wouldn't advocate for a ban on alcohol, it's much too ingrained in culture and too easy to make, but I hope that society some day gets to the point that it rejects it, much like we reject huffing shoe polish.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#519

Post by AlexandrB »

bumby wrote: post #509
gspencley wrote: post #494

> 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…

Just for clarity, do you extend this to the government's ban on cigarettes being sold to minors? I.e., if a parent thought cigarette smoking was an acceptable risk for their children, should those children should be allowed to smoke? Or are some risks unacceptable irrespective of the parents assessment? If you do think some things are off the table regardless of the parent's opinion, where is that line drawn? (again,…

> I.e., if a parent thought cigarette smoking was an acceptable risk for their children, should those children should be allowed to smoke?

I think it's pretty common for parents to give their kids alcohol before they're 18/19/21. And many kids in my high school did smoke. Where/how they got the cigarettes is unknown, but it's not like they were rounded up and jailed for the act of smoking while underage.

Or are you referring to punishing the parents?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#520

Post by retrac »

AlexandrB wrote: post #519
bumby wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for clarity, do you extend this to the government's ban on cigarettes being sold to minors? I.e., if a parent thought cigarette smoking was an acceptable risk for their children, should those children should be allowed to smoke? Or are some risks unacceptable irrespective of the parents assessment? If you do think some things are off the table regardless of the parent's opinion, where is that line drawn? (again,…

> I.e., if a parent thought cigarette smoking was an acceptable risk for their children, should those children should be allowed to smoke? I think it's pretty common for parents to give their kids alcohol before they're 18/19/21. And many kids in my high school did smoke. Where/how they got the cigarettes is unknown, but it's not like they were rounded up and jailed for the act of smoking while underage. Or are you r…

> Or are you referring to punishing the parents?

Generally these kinds of laws go after adults who sell, or otherwise enable access, to drugs, or pornography, or violent films, etc., to children.

In my jurisdiction, it's a crime for a store to sell cigarettes to children under 19. And failure of parents to take basic steps to prevent their younger kids (up to 14) from getting their hands on them, is considered child abuse/neglect, much like if you allowed a toddler to drink poison.

Post reply on HN