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

361–370 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#361

Post by Auracle »

seoulmetro wrote: post #344
DougN7 wrote: 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…

It's just a fashion to have issues at the moment. It comes with living a comfortable life. It's actually a blessing in disguise but can get annoying.

Teens literally put their (usually self diagnosed) conditions in their Instagram bios.

That sort of thing used to be only something you’d share with close friends, if that. It was a big deal if someone let you know they had bipolar, depression, etc.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#362

Post by YouSuck2 »

username332211 wrote: post #221
ianai wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats obviously not a primary concern. Similar to how your home kitchen isn't going to have a food inspector show up and close it.

The comparison you're making is nonsensical. My home kitchen doesn't routinely serve strangers. The forum I host trough a server in my cupboard does. If you want to make a comparison, it's between a small family restaurant and a giant fast food chain. It may surprise you but food inspectors treat both in roughly the same way. Face it. Nothing meaningfully separates my forum from giant social media companies apart fro…

You're making a ridiculous argument

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#363

Post by throwaway2037 »

nineteen999 wrote: post #340
mptest wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zero trolling: When did this become obvious to you? And why/how?

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#364

Post by ayakang31415 »

First of all, they need to define what "harmful" is as quantifiable variable(s). Then the states in this case must prove that the contents from Meta are harmful in this context. Lastly, they need to prove there exists a statistical causal link from such "harmful" contents to the mental well-being of the children. Many parents kind of "sense" social media is harmful, but I don't see how they can "prove" that social media is really "harmful"

edit: grammar

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#365

Post by quickthrower2 »

logicchains wrote: post #320
quickthrower2 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are confounding

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#366

Post by failbuffer »

DougN7 wrote: 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…

A good book on this is The Coddling of the American Mind. It argues several factors (including social media, safteyism, and the decline in unstructured play time) are responsible for the significant rise in young adult mental health issues that started around 2012. Good read.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#367

Post by quickthrower2 »

jpsouth wrote: post #319
quickthrower2 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Chronic (as in regular, not heavy) drinking causes changes in mood, increased stress and body function. A glass of wine a day for example.

Reference: https://youtu.be/DkS1pkKpILY?si=SIn7pg3ebRGbHcXQ

Alcohol is so ingrained in popular culture that criticising it is almost taboo.

Culture will play a big part in what people under the legal age to buy consume with family. It can be a good think but I reckon once a month have a glass of wine.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#368

Post by Swizec »

robertlagrant wrote: post #354
Loughla wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a constant dopamine hit not addictive?

If its delivery coated your lungs with tar, it would then be comparable to big tobacco.

If social media use has been casually linked to depression and friends, that’s kinda like coating your brain with tar.

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/study-social-m...

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#369

Post by Atrine »

ayakang31415 wrote: post #364

First of all, they need to define what "harmful" is as quantifiable variable(s). Then the states in this case must prove that the contents from Meta are harmful in this context. Lastly, they need to prove there exists a statistical causal link from such "harmful" contents to the mental well-being of the children. Many parents kind of "sense" social media is harmful, but I don't see how they can "prove" that social me…

Cyberbullying? Eating disorders? Majority of their time on social media? Increase in medication usage? Cutting? Depression? Suicides?

There are plenty of things to measure. Just pick one and stop trying to play this ridiculous game of "what about-isms".

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#370

Post by jonhohle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #351
jonhohle wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent of a now-13 year old, I’m disappointed that COPPA hasn’t been updated after companies have gone aggressively after children. I was shocked over the summer when I received an email saying I was going to lose some of the Xbox controls we have in place, as if 13 was some milestone of maturity and self-control. AFAICT, I’m legally responsible for my children until they’re 18, and at least at the moment, they…

> As a parent of a now-13 year old, I’m disappointed that COPPA hasn’t been updated after companies have gone aggressively after children. COPPA was the culmination of a series of progressively more narrow attempts to restrict internet content and practices using “think of the children” as a justification, the previous efforts were, but for some standalone bits (like Section 230, which survived from the mostly-uncons…

There is historical precedent for limiting access for children. Children can't legally buy cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, firearms (of which owning is a constitutional right), or enter certain prohibited places. Unfortunately, I many service providers have abused their access to children and acted as if children can legally enter into some type of one sided quasi-contract. The bar for working with children at any physical location is huge and boundaries are well understood.

I know of exactly zero places I take my children (activities, sports, clubs, etc.) that would speak to them privately to coerce them to use that service more without parental consent. That's what Meta and a million other online services are doing to children.

Post reply on HN