Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wait Until 8th pledge

waituntil8th.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#241

Post by prepend »

clove wrote: post #235
prepend wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's disingenuous to pretend watching some documentary on planets is the same as scrolling on tiktok. It’s disingenuous to pretend kids are only watching documentaries on planets. Especially when YouTube recommends “boobfest2023” ad a follow up. I removed YouTube from everything but the main tv because everyone my kids were watching something “normal” it went into crazy town of violence, conspiracies, and just gian…

All of this kvetching... You're killing yourself psychologically. And you're so addicted to YouTube that you'll make all these complaints yet keep it on your main TV? Let me help you: >And there’s no way in YouTube to fix this. Even “YouTube Kids” ended up in garbage after a few bits. It's called "YouTube Premium" and removing the channels you don't like from YouTube Kids.

I’m not sure you’re using the word “addicted” properly. It’s a tool that is used sparsely. It’s on my main tv because the only way to moderate is manually. This actually makes us watch it way less.

My problem with YT isn’t the ads. It’s the recommendation engine that shows bad stuff. If I remove a specific channel, there are many more to take its place.

It’s just not a very good product for kids as there is poor moderation.

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#242

Post by rationalist »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #160
autoexec wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart phones are poor computers. They also come with social media apps preloaded (the last cell phone I bought prevented deleting or uninstalling facebook) although that doesn't mean you can't order your children not to create accounts. They're also difficult to lockdown and monitor, and they continuously broadcast copious amounts of data about your children to third parties. Children would be much better served by h…

What the hell phones have you been buying? The only ones I’ve seen preloaded with social apps are ones where cell carriers have preloaded them with trash.

probably the kind that a vast number of people buy.

I just overheard someone talking about how they buy cheap phones on Amazon because they don't need all the bells and whistles. Except they don't know that's not the only reason why that phone is cheap.

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#243

Post by CatWChainsaw »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #131
npunt wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's cool you, a tech-savvy HN poster, has managed to wield technology to find a high-reward/low-risk way to parent using devices, but perhaps your 'correct' solution may not work in all contexts for all people. Perhaps you just have a kid who has the right temperament to handle devices when young. Perhaps you work few enough hours or have the resources necessary to parent in a way to make this work. Perhaps the ki…

This is the perfect reply. You said it better than I could. This parent has the three "perhaps" and hardly knows it. This is another good example of HN exceptionalism. It is ironic that the Silicon Valley millionaires made rich by the attention addicting apps also work very hard to limit their own children's access and screen time.

"Irony" kind of implies it was unexpected...

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#244

Post by parasubvert »

voidhorse wrote: post #20
colecut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is some social activity on YouTube but I have trouble thinking of it as "social media" in the Facebook/Instagram sense..

True, but I personally feel it's just as potentially damaging to the psyche, if not more so, in certain ways. Your kid starts watching minecraft let plays and next thing you know one of the lets players grifts for some neo-nazi or mysogynist and your kid has a bunch of bad ideas flowing into their head...

My kid watches youtube but i track his history. it's generally harmless gaming stuff from creators i don't worry about too much. he doesn't use any social media otherwise (a bit of discord for gaming, that's it).

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#245

Post by parasubvert »

wpietri wrote: post #18
parasubvert wrote: post #3

Yeah, how about no. Parent your kids to balance their screen time, and please keep them off social media as long as possible (or very supervised). But pledges like this are ridiculous, and remind me of how parents in the 80s thought the C64 or NES was going to rot kids brains, just like TV in the 70s.

Is this something you are currently doing? Or more a theory? I know one parent, a software developer, whose kid goes to a school that strongly encouraged this and so they signed up for it. It seems to work fine for them. In contrast, I know other parents who have given their kids phones and it is quite hard to completely monitor their usage of it. Around the house, parents develop a background sense for where their k…

It's something I'm currently doing with my 14 year old.

the phone requires approval for app installs, so no social media. I have the phone unlock code and track browser history both at the phone and the router. He can and does use incognito mode, and the router mostly catches the porn URLs if any (thankfully not a lot - more gross out sites which we have chats about).

I track Youtube history as he uses my premium account to avoid ads + usually can see that stuff at the router.

Next step i've been meaning to do is setup a forwarding proxy so that even cell data use is tracked.

Generally if he does things I get concerned about, we have a conversation about what worries me, and how i want him to adjust his habits. this sometimes works, sometimes reverts back and requires a reminder.

all of this can blow up into full on blocking and acrimony eventually, I guess. i am working on his coping and judgement so that when he does branch out he has tools to handle what he runs into. I grew up in the late 80s "very online" with BBS's and internet in the early 90s... and got into a lot of dangerous things without my parents really knowing. I have a sense of how to protect against that but yes there are limits.

We are also recently fostering a 16 year old girl with terrible social media dependency and a history of self harm, and that is a much different set of strategies. taking the phone away there also doesn't IMO solve problems , it just creates new ones, especially given she is almost an adult. so this one is about cognitive behavior therapy, psychiatric therapy, building coping skills and executive functions, and building stable in person activities and relationships that are preferable to the online relationships. and trying to lower the social media usage to close friends + humour only rather than flirting with boys in remote countries.

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#246

Post by geocar »

sokoloff wrote: post #231
geocar wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not at all. Then stop changing the subject. We are taking about this distressing statement: > Also, I wouldn't cut my parents off for disagreeing with me about morality or ethics, I would expect the same treatment from my kids when they are grown-ups. which certainly sounds like there isn’t a moral or ethical position their parent could have including abuse . I don’t think anyone thinks the only unethical thing in…

I’ve read your replies upthread and it seems rich to suggest that I’m the one changing the subject. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36210978 Is the post where you appear to have conflated immoral/unethical with abuse and it spiraled from there as people tried to explain that to you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36214514 you agreed abuse is immoral and unethical, so clearly nothing is being "conflated" except in your own mind.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36210181 is where debok says they are okay with all immoral and unethical behaviour in their family members, and that includes abuse since we both agree that abuse is (one of many things that is) immoral or unethical.

Now you bring up this idea https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36214514 that I must mean that "that abuse is the only (or even primary) thing that a kid could conceivably complain is immoral or unethical" but that's definitely not what I'm talking about; I'm saying a kid could complain about abuse, and debok says they would still maintain a relationship with that abuser because they are their parents, and that is what I think is wrong and that what you replied to. Maybe you didn't know before but now you do, and as you persist, I think it is a kindness to say you're only trying to change the subject, instead of what I really think.

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#247

Post by geocar »

debok wrote: post #239
geocar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you meant abuse, you certainly could have been a lot more clearer... debok are telling me they can have a relationship with someone who is immoral and unethical in their opinion. Are you saying you think abuse isn't immoral or unethical?

> debok are telling me they can have a relationship with someone who is immoral and unethical in their opinion. I do that all the time. In some cases, like abuse, I consider those people to be my enemies. I consider it moral and ethical to love your enemies. So I have relationships with moral and unethical people without stamping my approval on their actions.

I don't think you should encourage people (including your kids) to do that: If someone doesn't feel like they should have a relationship with someone, they shouldn't have to.

I also think you should consider the context a little bit: I'm trying to tell you that if you're not on your kids' side then they're going to keep some things from you (NB emphasis: "you will lose access to a part of their life forever"), not that they're going to keep everything from you, or "cut you off completely". Did you perhaps miss that and read what I wrote a little too narrowly?

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#248

Post by wpietri »

vxNsr wrote: post #216
wpietri wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. Which is why I asked. If you mean something else, perhaps you could be so kind as to say it.

You do appear to have difficulty as you took what I said in metaphor and applied it literally. that's not how metaphors work.

You literally did not use a metaphor. You claimed that other people were making comparisons. But a metaphor is just one kind of comparative tool.

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#249

Post by gffrd »

cataphract wrote: post #202
prepend wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a bad example because it’s 100 years old and was reversed and, hopefully, is the last time the US does this. There are tons of “virtues” that aren’t resulting in laws- exercise is good, sugar is bad, coke is bad, etc etc Saying we shouldn’t encourage voluntary pledges to help our kids because it might be mandatory is probably not a good idea. The tangible benefit from the pledge seems more likely than…

Easy to find in the context of child rearing. Beating children was common, started being socially stigmatized and finally became considered child abuse. A more recent example: the ban on plastic straws. Lots of restaurants were shunning them before they became illegal in several jurisdictions

Yeah, “don’t beat children” seems like a pretty good thing to have advanced as law.

So the argument against is “that’s for me to decide!” and “some people are beaten and turn out fine!”?

Re: The Wait Until 8th pledge

#250

Post by vxNsr »

wpietri wrote: post #248
vxNsr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do appear to have difficulty as you took what I said in metaphor and applied it literally. that's not how metaphors work.

You literally did not use a metaphor. You claimed that other people were making comparisons. But a metaphor is just one kind of comparative tool.

You continue to obstinately be overly semantic instead accepting that not everything is perfectly literal.
Post reply on HN