Live data from Hacker News

Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

bloomberg.com

331–340 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#331
post #62

Growing up, I knew maybe two or three kids that had emotional problems. Now (as an adult with grown kids) I hardly know any families that don’t have such a person. I’m sure part of it is we’re more open, which is great, but I can’t attribute all of it to that. The rising generation is really struggling. My guess is social media, but maybe it’s environmental pollution or something similar. I live in the US for what it…

>My guess is social media, but maybe it’s environmental pollution or something similar There are plenty of other countries that have just as much social media usage as the US but don't have the same widespread emotional dysfunction, so wouldn't that suggest that social media isn't to blame?

> There are plenty of other countries that have just as much social media usage as the US but don't have the same widespread emotional dysfunction

Are you sure? A quick search says otherwise. E.g Effect of social media on youth in [country].

I guess my search term is favouring a conclusion but not sure where / how to find proof of your claim.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#332
post #306

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'm mid 20's and it's obvious what to do. Universal child care, housing, healthcare, etc, and parents would have more time to parent their kids instead of slaving away to make someone else enough money to buy their fifth yacht or passing their childcare off to an ipad. We have worse than gilded age inequality, 9 people own more wealth than 3.6 BILLION combined. Maybe address that first??? I'd wager we'd find 99% of p…

If you look at history, the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones.

Look at the mechanical loom (industrialisation), pesticides (agricultural yield increase), penicillin (life expectancy increase), painkillers (life quality increase), clean water (wide-spread infrastructure), cheap microwaves (overseas slave labour), reliable vehicles for all (fossil fuel infrastructure).

We need to continue this trend to fix the problems. The billionaires aren’t blocking us. Yes, it’s unfair that they hold so much wealth and power. The world has been that way for a long time.

When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part. The important part is that the masses’ lives were better.

Next steps for us:

- Find manufacturing processes that don’t require overseas slave labour

- Agricultural processes that don’t need as much pesticide

- Better, cheaper medicine (recent developments in quantum computing suggest we may be able to crack protein folding within 10 years, which will lead to an explosion in medical research)

- Automated construction (see Hadrian X)

- A replacement for fossil fuels (if we crack fusion, we can use that for the grid and we can create our own combustion juice for vehicles using the enormous amount of energy available)

- Protocells that allow extremely precise manufacturing at scale (protocells are programmed cells or completely custom cells that we can equip & program for certain tasks, like “remove all the iron ore from the ground here” — they will change everything)

These are the things that will bring the rest of the world out of poverty. And, depending on how we adapt to the irrelevancy of capitalism as these technologies develop, it may solve the inequality/unfairness problem too.

Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#333
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think less “app too good” and more “big tobacco strategy”. Because let’s not kid ourselves: that’s exactly what these apps are trying to do – become as addictive as possible. On purpose.

Everyone wants to sell more; that's far too broad a category. Tobacco is bad because it is chemically addictive, and its delivery is paired with inhaling tar.

Is a constant dopamine hit not addictive?

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#334

Irrespective of the incidental value "Meta" provides, let's keep in mind that no business has a right to exist independently from its standing in the system of laws and the health of its users - especially children. Social media companies argue that they can't monitor every post and do appropriate age verification online because it would be "impossible to scale". Well, tough luck. Not being able to scale is YOUR prob…

The mistake we are making here is to draw the problem along the boundary of age. The problem is not exclusive to children! Even if you could successfully bar all children from participating on Facebook, the problem would still exist, and Facebook would continue to harm people.

There are many things in life more harmful than Facebook that we don't ban. Just because you don't like something or it has some negatives doesn't mean it should be illegal. Indeed given that it's impossible to specifically define "social media" such a ban wouldn't even really be legally feasible given 1st amendment issues.

Now personally I don't use alcohol, don't do drugs (including caffeine), don't gamble, and barely ever use social media (except HN, my one guilty pleasure). But I still think those things should all be legal.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#335
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think less “app too good” and more “big tobacco strategy”. Because let’s not kid ourselves: that’s exactly what these apps are trying to do – become as addictive as possible. On purpose.

Everyone wants to sell more; that's far too broad a category. Tobacco is bad because it is chemically addictive, and its delivery is paired with inhaling tar.

Yes everyone wants to sell more, but social media companies purposefully try to make their product addictive. There are entire teams of psychologists and behavioral experts figuring out how to maximize engagement through manipulating your emotional response to stimuli.

It’s similar to the superstimulus effect in junk food. The stuff is designed to hijack your instincts without providing much in return. We think we get more value out of social media (or a bag of chips) than we actually do because it’s purposefully designed to make us feel that way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#336

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?

By that logic I guess we shouldn't have rules against companies selling children food with ground up glass in it. If you can't trust parents to keep their kids from buying food with ground up glass in it, why not have the government ban everything that could be bad for kids right? Personally, I'm very much glad that the government doesn't allow companies to sell food to children with ground up glass in it no matter what individual parents do or don't allow and nothing about that ban on ground up glass in food means that we should also ban soda or candy.

We can absolutely look at products and services that are actually harmful and deem them unacceptable for children without banning every other thing on the planet that might possibly be bad. Some states feel that Facebook has risen to the level where it's harmful enough to do something at the government level. I think that's probably what's needed since facebook has demonstrated that they're unwilling or unable to stop the harm they're causing without government intervention.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#337
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

social media is more like crack or some other terrible drug

Really? It bankrupts its users? People can't hold a job because of it? People will rob stores to get more money to use more social media? It causes families to painfully detach themselves from addicts?

it does because it eats away all valuable time and turns people into slaves and consumers instead of creators of value

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#338

Irrespective of the incidental value "Meta" provides, let's keep in mind that no business has a right to exist independently from its standing in the system of laws and the health of its users - especially children. Social media companies argue that they can't monitor every post and do appropriate age verification online because it would be "impossible to scale". Well, tough luck. Not being able to scale is YOUR prob…

It's unclear if even the porn site verification laws will be allowed[1] so I'm not sure the chances are that good in terms of requiring age verification for all social media.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/31/23854369/texas-porn-age-v...

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#340
post #306

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'm mid 20's and it's obvious what to do. Universal child care, housing, healthcare, etc, and parents would have more time to parent their kids instead of slaving away to make someone else enough money to buy their fifth yacht or passing their childcare off to an ipad. We have worse than gilded age inequality, 9 people own more wealth than 3.6 BILLION combined. Maybe address that first??? I'd wager we'd find 99% of p…

I'm in my late 40's and I agree with you 100%, more now than I would have at any point previously, and I certainly don't consider myself a bleeding leftie. Might be interesting to see how the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" HN/SV crowd react to your comment.
Post reply on HN