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

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#541

Post by clnq » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

mxkopy wrote: post #532

clnq wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharmacology, yes. But we can compare social media and other addictions in terms of social harm, health harm, psychological and emotional harm, withdrawal symptoms, financial consequences, impairment to decision-making, procrastination and distraction impacting attainability of personal goal, prerogatives and decreasing motivation, relationship harm (it is difficult to form relationships with those "terminally online…

In my experience you don't become terminally online unless there's something else going on in your life. People talking about the ills of social media seem to forget that children nowadays are: institutionalized for 8 hours of their day, raised on diets of processed garbage, etc. Like, a well adjusted kid isn't going to treat social media as more important than their friends unless they think they can make a living f…

> In my experience you don't become terminally online unless there's something else going on in your life

That's true, but it's also true for other addictions.

> a well adjusted kid isn't going to treat social media as more important than their friends unless they think they can make a living from it or have no friends.

Probably mostly true, but also a lot of friendships are moving online.

> I think "dopamine bombing" is not what it sounds

Can you elaborate? I think it sounds like abusing the dopamine hits you get when scrolling through SM, for example.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#542

Post by RoyGBivCap » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #194

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mentioned prohibition, but for some reason left out capital-P Prohibition, which brought us mobsters, speakeasys, and the US government blinding people: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-government-enforced... and was eventually repealed. Drugs won the "war on drugs". We don't need more authoritarianism. Provide education, and let people choose. Anything else, they'll fight you on it.

I didn't say it was good policy. Nor did I say it didn't have unintended consequences. Nor did I say I favored it. But it is a myth that "it doesn't work". Prohibition works in that it reduces consumption of or participation in the prohibited thing. It's a popular historical myth that prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S. It did. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... The War On Drug…

A ban is supposed to do more than "reduce" it's supposed to eliminate. So no, it doesn't work.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#543

Post by randomdata » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

dustedcodes wrote: post #521

randomdata wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If HN isn't social media, I'm not sure what is. Perhaps you are referring to plain old media where there is no meaningful social interaction, rather one-way consumption of produced content? Indeed, lawmakers do seem concerned about new entrants to the media space, like producers on TikTok, no doubt because they struggle to exert the same kind of control over the content like they used to be able to when there were on…

> If HN isn't social media, I'm not sure what is. You don't see significant measurable difference between Insta/TikTok and HN? Ouch!

In fact, I see a considerable difference. Instagram and TikTok, have no meaningful social component. It's just content producers producing content for consumption by consumers. They are effectively cable TV providers, only deviating from traditional cable TV in that there is no hard limit on the number of channels.

HN is social media. Active, two way conversation which emulates going outside to talk to your neighbour, except with people around the globe, is what attracts people here. The users here aren't here just to watch TV like they are on Instagram and TikTok.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#544

Post by Jochim » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #308

amatecha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I'm pretty sure ads paid for the vast majority of useful websites that have ever existed, including sites like youtube which just wouldn't exist without them. I tend to think a vast proportion of the freely available i…

Slave plantations also lead to the construction and donation of a lot of public buildings in the UK. At the time these would have been a major improvement in the lives of those who benefited from them. However, it's not a strong argument for continuing the practice.

I'd honestly rather get rid of advertising. The industry has shown itself far too happy to promote addiction to increase revenue. The fact that some "good" tools have been funded by it

Psychological manipulation in general should be much more regulated than it is. Tobacco, gambling, and advertising are the first that come to mind but the food industry is often just as bad, if not worse.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#545

Post by jutrewag » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #499

jutrewag wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#546

Post by gspencley » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

puglr wrote: post #533

gspencley wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context my default position on all issues stems from my personal world view that the only justifiable role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. With respects to cigarettes, I am open to being persuaded by the fact that an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing…

> an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context. 1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while no…

1. I don't care what people believe. Human history is full of people who moved to restrict the rights of others because of their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to me.

2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legislate against that because people have the right (legally and morally IMO) to commit suicide by any means of their choosing.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#547

Post by DubiousPusher » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #542

DubiousPusher wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was good policy. Nor did I say it didn't have unintended consequences. Nor did I say I favored it. But it is a myth that "it doesn't work". Prohibition works in that it reduces consumption of or participation in the prohibited thing. It's a popular historical myth that prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S. It did. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... The War On Drug…

A ban is supposed to do more than "reduce" it's supposed to eliminate. So no, it doesn't work.

That's why I started this entire exchange with

> This depends on your definition of the term "works".

I think for a lot of governments and policy makers the goal is to significantly reduce.

By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#548

Post by galaxyLogic » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #466

camgunz wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't delve into the opinions but it seems like the decision relied on basic content-neutral doctrine. That's par for the course 1A stuff.

"par for the course 1A stuff" suggests that advertisements actually ARE first ammendment protected in the USA. Because... they are. Original commenter suggested they were not even considered "speech" and were not, which is not accurate description of the law. (In fact, though, advertisements are not treated exactly the same way as other kinds of speech, say, political speech. The bar is different, and more regulation…

There's a fine line between free speech and fraud

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#549

Post by goatlover » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

swexbe wrote: post #382

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the war on drugs has been really successful. I certainly want governments doing more of that!

Libertarians hate to hear this but the government actually regulate lots of things, not just drugs. Many of these regulations are very successful.

There's a difference between regulating and banning, or outright fighting a "war" on something. The latter causing far worse societal problems.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#550

Post by tomrod » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

InCityDreams wrote: post #479

tomrod wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, let the tech companies figure it out while getting sued. It's a pressure on the market that gets the incentives aligned. Edge cases are a good thing here, as it leads to a desired outcome that age verification and permissioning are legit because you can be sued to pieces.

Can't run your social media without advertising or ad-funded content? Mission accomplished.