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

Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#311

Post by codegeek »

impulser_ wrote: post #283
codegeek wrote: post #262

As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I am all in for it. If you cannot smoke/drink till 21, you shouldn't be able to do Social media till then. It is that bad especially for children.

Yeah, but why not also ban candy, soda, junk food, video games ect? If we can't trust parents to parent their kids then why not ban everything that possibly could be bad for kids?

I get your point. But we have to draw the line somewhere and Soda (even though addictive) is not something that has the same level of peer pressure and damage vector as Social Media. If all your 9 year old friends are on it, you bet you wanna be on it.

I will also argue that things like Soda can harm you but are much easier to restrict compared to Social Media access and social media has compounding effects on your mind especially if you are a child.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#312

Post by Clubber »

deegles wrote: post #272

My gut feeling is that nothing will change meaningfully as long as employee promotions are dependent on increasing engagement (either directly or indirectly). I believe that no single person sits down and says "let's make kids get addicted to our product," but they do run A/B tests or new features and keep the better performing variant. The end result of many of these cycles is the same.

Nothing will meaningfully change, it's mostly a money grab I assume. Politicians and media have built up this boogieman for years and now it's time to cash in. The kids supposedly negatively affected won't see any of that money either. The social media companies just need to donate more to campaigns to make it go away. Cynical as hell, but watch, that is how it plays out.

>I believe that no single person sits down and says "let's make kids get addicted to our product," but they do run A/B tests or new features and keep the better performing variant.

Television stations make pilot programs to see if a show is any good. Intentionally making bad shows isn't a great business model. Television stations want shows people will watch, otherwise they are wasting a ton of money. I suspect social media is similar.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#313

Post by b20000 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #299

Several comments say we should ban social media for people under 18. Such a blunt, indiscrimate, careless solution may indicate the typical ages of HN members! What do some people under 18 think of the problem and solutions? I'm not sure how many are here, but maybe some HN members could ask their kids.

i think that the deliberate design of applications to profit from or incur damage to mental health should be prohibited at state and federal levels

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#314

Post by b20000 »

balls187 wrote: post #308
wolverine876 wrote: post #299

Several comments say we should ban social media for people under 18. Such a blunt, indiscrimate, careless solution may indicate the typical ages of HN members! What do some people under 18 think of the problem and solutions? I'm not sure how many are here, but maybe some HN members could ask their kids.

I didn’t bother asking my kids what’s their opinion regarding cigarettes.

social media is more like crack or some other terrible drug

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#315

Post by [deleted] »

spookie wrote: post #254
Zufriedenheit wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about all the small, independent forums in the internet? For them it would really be impossible to comply with monitoring every post. Often they are hobby projects.

There needs to be a line drawn from those who service a large number of people, and those who don't. Either way, only those who are big enough can be actively monitored and accounted for. Before the obvious argument "where do you draw the line?", I may add that only a select and obvious number of social platforms reach the level of Meta's.

[deleted]

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#316

Post by mcpackieh »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #165
yodsanklai wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not being able to scale is YOUR problem, not MINE. Following your reasoning, anything that could possibly harm children should be banned. Cars sometimes kill children, shall we ban them too? Now, suppose we do ban Meta. Where should we stop? should we ban open decentralized social media too? You may not like social media, but a lot of people use them without any particular issues.

Using a car without a license is in fact banned, because this minimizes harm to kids (and non-kids).

> Using a car without a license is in fact banned

On public roads, but not otherwise.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#318

Post by codegeek »

wolverine876 wrote: post #299

Several comments say we should ban social media for people under 18. Such a blunt, indiscrimate, careless solution may indicate the typical ages of HN members! What do some people under 18 think of the problem and solutions? I'm not sure how many are here, but maybe some HN members could ask their kids.

The problem is that we are talking about kids who could be 9 or 10 and not just 17 or just under 18. Yes there may be some 12 year olds on HN but I would doubt that you will have a 10 year old here with their opinion. There is a huge difference b/w 10 year old and a 17 year old even though I personally want to Ban Social Media until 21.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#319

Post by jpsouth »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #301
katamarimambo wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 20 year old person is already old enough to use Social Media, smoke and drink. By 2 years at least. Y'all insane.

As someone who drunk at 18, I think it is too young. Alcohol is a drug just like coke, cannabis etc. By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction.

Counterpoint: You can reduce the potential for addiction with education as well, and no time better than an early age. In Europe it’s widely accepted young adults will drink, and we can do so as young as 14 in restaurants (that’s the lowest I know).

Allowing it and not making young adults hide what they’re doing is so important. That way it can be regulated by a responsible adult, and someone on hand to make sure there’s a bucket, some water and a blanket with no danger or fear of recourse.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#320

Post by logicchains »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #301
katamarimambo wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 20 year old person is already old enough to use Social Media, smoke and drink. By 2 years at least. Y'all insane.

As someone who drunk at 18, I think it is too young. Alcohol is a drug just like coke, cannabis etc. By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction.

>By holding off until 21 you can reduce the amount of long term addiction.

This is empirically completely and utterly false; the US has far more alcoholics than many countries with a lower legal drinking age and responsible drinking cultures.

Post reply on HN