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

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#571

Post by atahanacar » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 11:57 PM UTC

mhardcastle wrote: post #564

atahanacar wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 tha…

>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?

I personally don't want to, because statistically around of the people are below average and I don't want my freedoms restricted because of them.

>Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent)

The taxes I pay benefit me, so it is an acceptable outcome. For example, if I paid for medical care out of my own pocked, I'd have to pay a lot more than any state would, because the state can have a greater control over prices when they are the only paying customer of healthcare.

Back to topic, no way I'm leaving anonymity on the table just because some people can't parent their kids.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#572

Post by hyperhopper » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 11:58 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #186

hyperhopper wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missing invites to parties, social gatherings etc. Even for not having an iphone I suffer from this, and would miss out on tons more if not for Facebook for event invites, Snapchat/Instagram stories, etc.

Green bubble/blue bubble issue?

Yes. Apparently it downgrades the group chat experience if a non iOS user is added

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#573

Post by RoyGBivCap » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 12:30 AM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #567

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[flagged]

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#574

Post by clnq » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 1:39 AM UTC

mxkopy wrote: post #552

clnq wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It implies a direct connection with neurochemistry that's much less direct than drugs (and even moreso diet), which can directly stimulate the release of dopamine. For example if I'm feeling tired of scrolling through memes, I can just put my phone away. I can't stop caffeine from stimulating my neurons, or ignore a macronutrient deficiency in my body. It might be that this is an unimportant distinction in the end, b…

Quite many people can't just put their phone away, even when they try to concentrate on something else. The behaviour seems to be very similar to other addictions.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#575

Post by nextlevelwizard » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:01 AM UTC

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #473

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1. Who cares, you cant pass laws on foreign countries anyway

2. Anything where you can post based on this "conversation"

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#576

Post by nextlevelwizard » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:04 AM UTC

burnished wrote: post #525

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Kind of weird to veer towards lies and malice at the drop of a hat here What? To me it is extremely naive to think that social media services wont try to use every single loop hole. Also, cant help but notice you didnt actually answer the question - just dismissed it.

I'm not doing your homework for you - if you think HN is personalized it should be trivial to show it.

There is just no response I can make that wouldn't be an insult, but couple of points:

- if you make a claim then burden of proof is on you

- I never actually claimed that HN was tailored, just pointed out that you can't tell if that was the case

I won't be reading more from you

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#577

Post by ED_Radish » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:32 AM UTC

cykros wrote: post #325

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…

When I was 14, I too was chatting with strangers on the Internet, be it on IRC or AIM, or sites like Livejournal or independent forums. That said, I've been contending with this situation having a 14 year old of my own at this point. The reality is, at that time, swatting was not a thing. Pictures on the Internet were like, something a minority of people had, because it involved taking a film picture and scanning it…

Honestly I'm definitely within the "New Internet" age range (currently a teen), and my talking to internet strangers experience when I was 14 was not too different from what you've described- being effectively anonymous, sharing a photo/video of yourself would've been a pretty major faux pas, only difference being I wound up on Discord rather than forums/IRC.

Its anecdotal for sure (maybe I just got lucky? maybe I had more sense than the average kid? maybe the shift is US/Western Nation localised?), but I don't think the internet has gotten worse everywhere at once.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#578

Post by CalRobert » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:37 AM UTC

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #332

CalRobert wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a town built from scratch where me and other millenial parents who want our kids to be able to run around and ride bikes and go to corner shops can actually do so.

You could try most of the world.

I am! Shame we had to emigrate.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#579

Post by dotandgtfo » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:39 AM UTC

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #285

dotandgtfo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how viable this is in the US due to reasons but a centralized auth service could in theory not provide any PII back to the service requesting an age verification, and the auth provider wouldn't necessarily have to be get data back from the service except for the first time a user registers an account.

[Muffled screaming]

Much of the EU uses centralized auth services for critical services like banking, taxes, applying for schools, applying for loans. It's pretty great honestly. There are also APIs for integrating into these where the user chooses what pii they want to share with the service.

I know it's a controversial topic but the argument that age verification and auth services must remove privacy and inevitably leads to mass surveillance is a false narrative which I find kind of funny as if anybody should know these technical realities it's users on hn.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#580

Post by Thedarkb » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 9:45 AM UTC

sw104 wrote: post #283

slothtrop wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it was clearly different back then If you go back far enough. I think in part we see forums through rose-tinted glasses. Moderation was looser than people are accustomed to now, and I've seen several taken over by conspiracy nuts. Some still make friends online almost the exact same way, using discord or whatever. I've been a part of communities, but never made "friends" online. The idea is a farce to me. I was…

The idea of making "friends" on the internet, on forums, Facebook, or Discord, has always been ludicrous. Unless you reach a stage where you meet up in real life and share human experiences, you're basically just talking with the equivalent of an AI chatbot.

I owe my career to friends made online. Online friends are no substitute for in-person interaction but it's perfectly possible to have a meaningful relationship with a person over the internet.