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

UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 302 posts

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#131

Post by porknubbins »

atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

Keeping children off social media, or to a very limited children only social media seems obviously a good thing.

My issue is the UK “free” speech standards seem to be something like free speech as long as its reasonable, doesn’t offend or excite too many people, cast aspersions on those in power etc, in other words not very free at all. And any form of internet registration could be used to tie more people to their posts.

Of course restricting posting some benefit exists as we seen in the US with robust free speech and twitter being overrun with third world posters attempting to influence domestic politics.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#132

Post by techblueberry »

Aurornis wrote: post #128
techblueberry wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an engineer, I tend to view solutions in terms of tradeoffs and not absolutes. 20 years ago the free and open internet was great. Now I think we’ve gone too far. And more to the point, I think freedom is protected by regulation, not by handing decisions over to whatever billionaire won a cage match. This is the gen-x part of my xennial talking, but I can’t help but feel like something has been lost when nothing is…

> A lot of people say this is dumb because teenagers will figure out a way to bypass it. Good! That’s what teenagers are supposed to do. So the teenagers bypass it and use other sites while us adults are handing our IDs over just to use basic websites? How is this good?

I’m becoming something of an accelerationist on this issue. I think we’re at a dead end with like 5 companies controlling most of the internet. If this pisses people off and encourages them to get active politically or create new modes of communication. Great!

Freedom has to be more than “you can choose any walled garden you want!” We need more spaces that aren’t mediated.

I feel like we’ve accepted this terrible definition of freedom, out of fear it could get worse, not because we love what we have.

But not to worry, I feel comfortable having contrarian views, because my one vote isn’t going to radically change the world.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#133

Post by llm_nerd »

peab wrote: post #60

Interesting that Canada is trying to do the same thing. Seems suspiciously similar. The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting. I think it's important we ask: could we invoke this ban without surveillance? - identity scan is one solution But surely there are other solutions? Can't you just make laws that get kids in trouble if they get caught on social media? Kids get in trouble for missing school..…

>Interesting that Canada is trying to do the same thing. Seems suspiciously similar.

Australia already did. Commonwealth countries share a lot in common, and of course a lot of problems are common across many countries.

But let's be real -- these countries are announcing it in lockstep because the US is a corrupt plutocracy, and the lords of the nation like Mark Zuckerberg will run to Trump and he'll have a little tantrum (tantrums that always, it should be mentioned, just hurt Americans more. Everything is in the service of the billionaire class) about this.

It's tougher for that grifter to do so if so many countries do it simultaneously.

>The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting.

What idea is that? That firms from foreign nations will gather IDs, of absolutely zero value for the country, to ensure age compliance? How does this silly conspiracy work?

Kids motivated will just get around it. But I think it's pretty clear at this point, given the idiocracies rising worldwide and how everything is getting stupider/worse, that social media has not been a net good.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#134

Post by DenisM »

maccard wrote: post #68
peab wrote: post #60

Interesting that Canada is trying to do the same thing. Seems suspiciously similar. The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting. I think it's important we ask: could we invoke this ban without surveillance? - identity scan is one solution But surely there are other solutions? Can't you just make laws that get kids in trouble if they get caught on social media? Kids get in trouble for missing school..…

The solution is parental controls on devices.

Simpler still, a “minor” bit on the phone, set by parents once. All services must respect the bit in http headers, and app stores should refuse to install certain apps. No need for id check

I imagine that many parent don’t want micromanage their kids apps, this takes care of the problem.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#135

Post by gib444 »

Bender wrote: post #116

I asked my Ouija board some questions and determined that: - Select 3rd parties friends of government officials will be taxpayer funded to verify government ID's and live facial recognition. - Said data will be "accidentally leaked" and somehow a myriad of 3rd parties and criminals end up with this data. - People will be encouraged to purchase some form of identity protection monitoring service. - People will conclud…

- It will somehow cost at least £1bn because everything costs £1bn these days

(NB it'll start off at a lower figure)

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#136

Post by ajkjk »

Aurornis wrote: post #74
atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them.

Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made.

The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrelevant noise.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#138

Post by _heimdall »

techblueberry wrote: post #115
_heimdall wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd dig deeper on the problem though. More fundamentally, laws like this are based on the fundamental assumption that both children and their parents can't make good decisions and that the state must instead force the right decisions on them.

Creativity requires limitations. > More fundamentally, laws like this are based on the fundamental assumption that both children and their parents can't make good decisions and that the state must instead force the right decisions on them. Also yeah? Sure? You may not like that that’s the conclusion. Why does everyone say this like it’s some kind of gotcha? Children are incapable biologically of making good decisions…

I don't say it as a gotcha. I say it to make clear that its an assumption baked into these laws that (a) I'm not sure a strong majority of people agree with and (b) creates further precedent for more government control over our lives and our children.

Edit: why is it you know these decisions should be made but you can't do it yourself? Do you not trust yourself, like an alcoholic avoiding one drink because it turns into 12, or do you not think you're capable of making the right choice at all?

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#140

Post by BigJono »

ajkjk wrote: post #136
Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them. Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made. The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrel…

Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.
Post reply on HN