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

561–570 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#561

Post by djhn »

cowl wrote: post #480
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)

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?

All of those are quite obviously ads and must be clearly labelled as such already within the UK and most of the EU.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#563

Post by eastbound »

tcfhgj wrote: post #322
eastbound wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you forbid ads, then only political propaganda with bring funding to content creators. It’s not just because you hide money that it’s not there.

What are you talking about?

If there is no ad money, the only ones left will be those who pay for political influence.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#564

Post by mhardcastle »

atahanacar wrote: post #438
mhardcastle wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents. Also, there are some times when coordination would result in better outcomes than single disorganized actors. I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without it.

>Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents. True. Companies who prey upon children and use their lack of experience as a source of income should be punished. >I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without…

"However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids."

This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?

This is truthfully a very unfamiliar concept to me. Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent) and/or regulations that solve genuine coordination problems - starting with national defense and criminal justice - are fundamental to any civilization run through anything other than pure anarchy.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#565

Post by worklaptopacct »

jutrewag wrote: post #559
worklaptopacct wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that a marriage between two people gives them absolute knowledge how to raise a child in an optimal way?

That’s part of the deal isn’t it. The government can’t decide and mandate what the optimal way to raise a child is outside of certain aspects like schooling, corporal punishment, age of consent etc.

What makes schooling, corporal punishment, age of consent, and - as discussed here - control over online communication acceptable government interventions into an otherwise wise, benevolent and self-sufficient family?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#566

Post by mock-possum »

jutrewag wrote: post #558
mock-possum wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see what you’re saying but there is some merit to kids being influenced to question their identity by outside forces when they probably would never have arrived at that conclusion themselves. You can be peer pressured into trying out a different sexuality- it happens a lot in prison, price of admission for acceptance into a new circle of friends etc.

But questioning your identity is a good thing - of course the broader experiences you’re exposed to the more opportunity you’ll have to question. You might as well keep kids away from the library which - let’s not kid ourselves - is a known conservative position as well. How are you ever going to learn about yourself if you only get to see one thing? The only reason to stop kids from learning about queerness is to constrain them to straightness.

I mean - growing up, when was the first time you had a gay peer? A gay friend? A gay family member? The first time you even saw an out and proud gay person, let alone someone you knew personally? The first time you saw a gay character in media, without it being either queer-coded villainy or a homophobia sob story? Like - obviously, as a kid, I knew that I wanted to have sex with other boys, I’m not an idiot, I can feel my own feelings - I just didn’t see a lot of good examples in my life of how I could do that, and still grow up to live a fully fleshed out adult life. Like I didn’t come out until college, and even then I was real hesitant about it, because I just didn’t know how being gay ‘in the real world’ would work -

And that was bullshit, I should have been out and proud at 11, instead of delaying my sexual and romantic development until my 20s. I had no idea how to date. My peers had had plenty of adolescent fumblings with dating, and I didn’t have a real boyfriend until I was like 27. That’s crazy! Why did I waste all that time?

All that time was wasted because of the double standard: Cishets get to practice cishettery whenever they want - queers are told “no you need to wait until it’s appropriate.” That’s not fair. If we really want to see that change, if we want real equality, we need to push back hard against this kind of oppressive policy, in my experience. You can’t just say “wait til you’re older” and expect things to magically sort themselves out. It’s hurting kids under the guise of helping them. Peer pressure will always exist, prison doesn’t even seem relevant here, but regardless, what will help kids is supporting them, not suppressing them.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#567

Post by DubiousPusher »

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #553
DubiousPusher wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

Even in scenarios where the specifically stated goal of a policy is a specific decline in some measure?

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#568

Post by cubefox »

emptystation wrote: post #404
cubefox wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that ads are the main problem of social media. It's rather the way they replace personal physical relationships with scrolling.

Ads insensitive platforms to design a more and more addictive infinite feed. If they cannot profit from children scrolling endlessly, why would they want to enable children to scroll endlessly? If ads for children on social media are banned (somehow), kids' feeds will probably just become way more boring.

I disagree. Just because some group doesn't get fed ads anymore, doesn't magically cause the social media platform to become any less addictive.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#569

Post by amatecha »

erfgh wrote: post #165
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.

How would you define advertising? If there were no advertisements how would people know about products? They would have to read discussions and recommendations but how would those discussions and recommendations not be considered advertisements?

Oh, yeah how would we possibly survive without advertisements to tell us what to buy?

I've never seen a single advertisement for any amateur radio equipment in my life, yet I have spent $thousands on gear, electronics components, kits etc. for this hobby, over the past year. Not a single advertisement was necessary for me to know what's out there. I know of vendors of certain equipment and browse their website. I talk with people I know. I browse forums, engage in social networks, watch videos, etc. ... at no time was paid advertising necessary (in fact, I consider it useless as I purchase products based on their verifiable merits, not how often I see them thrown at me by a marketing team).

This same experience applies to literally anything I purchase. I've never once bought a computer component (or been even remotely inclined to purchase one) based on an ad. Nor a vehicle, article of clothing, toothbrush, pair of shoes, yardwork tool, battery, food item or grocery, etc. etc... shall I go on? I aggressively block ads, mute devices that are playing them (if I cannot block/skip them), look away from them, and generally have a well-practiced skill of averting my conscious awareness away from any form of advertising.

Personal experience with products it not an advertisement unless the person is receiving compensation to provide that review/post/recommendation. It's quite easy to define, and also why the Federal Trade Commission in the US requires "influencers" to disclose that they are being compensated for their endorsements/reviews: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-...

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#570

Post by snvzz »

goatlover wrote: post #264
snvzz wrote: post #81

I'd ban children from the Internet and from the phone network. Computers are fine, as long as they're offline. Countless generations of kids have grown up fine in these conditions. We already know being online is bad for them. What are we waiting for?

How do you possibly enforce something like that for only kids without invading everyone's privacy? What makes you think kids won't find a hundred ways around it?

I am glad you agree with the premise that we should do it, and it's now a matter of how.

We can figure out the how. Say:

- No sale of phones nor phone lines nor ISP's services to children.

- No public access to internet for children in schools, libraries or coffee stores.

- Information campaign for parents.

- ToS of any internet-based service to forbid use by children.

It doesn't need to go much further than this. Similar to how we don't feed caffeine to kids. Or allow them anywhere near pornography.

No draconian measures are necessary, and we can introduce the measures progressively e.g. starting with under 12, then 15, then finally at 18.

Post reply on HN