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

171–180 of 302 posts

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

#171

Post by hollerith »

Lio wrote: post #165
ajkjk wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned and we think it's important. I that once freedom of speech and freedom to communicate and freedom to decent are gone they are gone for good. I dislike very much that politicians like Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have tried to shut down dissenting voices by comparing them to paedophiles or saying this is just about access to porn. I'm really angry about this. I don'…

>We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned

Huh? I must've read thousands of comments on this site over the years to the effect that any censorship of the internet would be wrong.

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

#172

Post by ajkjk »

BigJono wrote: post #140
ajkjk wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We... are... talking about regulating and banning them. That is what is being done. Talking about regulating and banning them. Not

> Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts

Whatever this is. We would be in agreement that would be bad. The debate is over whether this is that, rather than whether that is bad. Misunderstanding that makes all the discussion pointless.

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

#173

Post by tarkin2 »

insurgent_dino wrote: post #170
tarkin2 wrote: post #162

I teach children. You have no idea how much social media has affected their attention, memory, critical reasoning and social skills: the social repercussions will be felt for decades. And this isn't mentioning exposing easily malleable minds to propaganda paid for by states that see the UK as an enemy, all before their critical reasoning skills, and awareness of their emotions, and how their emotions can be used agai…

Do you agree that parents should be the one protecting their children from this 'propaganda' and internet slop? Whilst I agree that social media can be overwhelmingly negative especially for young people, dont you recon that the risk to privacy and free-nature / increased surveillance of the internet is a greater problem?

Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?

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

#174

Post by TFNA »

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…

> Do people not realize that they're going after Reddit

Reddit is a cesspool and an example of how we're in a post-peak internet like the OP says. If you actually browse Reddit the way the vast majority of people do now (i.e. not Old Reddit that masks the decline), it's crazy engagement-farming patterns everywhere, and not much of a community any more when many comments are hidden by default.

Most people today just like to fire off one-sentence comments; if you seek substantial discussion, you'll often now stand out as a weirdo on the spectrum, and may even draw downvotes and "lol wall of text bro" comments.

Yes, I follow close-knit little subs off the main page. There has been a flow of users away to WhatsApp groups, of all things -- it's that bad.

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

#175

Post by Aurornis »

vincnetas wrote: post #157
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…

OG internet was not swarming with multibillion dollar predators ready to exploit every single psychological trick to manipulate you for profit. If you can solve this, i welcome the OG internet to be free and open place to share ideas. Let me know your suggestions.

The mistake is thinking that regulation and removing the free internet is going to harm those corporations you dislike and leave the smaller sites untouched.

The more regulations are added, the harder it is for anyone other than the multibillion dollar corporations to set up the infrastructure needed to comply.

That small forum you visit and the chat space you hang out in have to geo block your entire region because their operator can’t take on the legal risk of accidentally violating one of the laws. You are, however, free to move the group to Facebook and continue your group chat on Discord after submitting to the ID verification process of both sites, however. Those are the sanctioned safe spaces that have teams of lawyers and developers ensuring compliance with the laws.

This is the future many here are inviting. They don’t see it that way because they’re imagining laws that say “Kids can’t use Facebook” but the actual laws are going to be written to say “Social sites that host user generated content must ensure that all users are over the age of…”

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

#176

Post by nly »

DenisM wrote: post #134
maccard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost all parents I know just let their kids use their phones. It's wild.

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

#177

Post by haunter »

philipallstar wrote: post #27
Fervicus wrote: post #19

Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.

This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.

It will apply to everyone once you have to prove you are over 16. Kids are just the excuse.

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

#178

Post by thisislife2 »

nly wrote: post #168
tarkin2 wrote: post #162

I teach children. You have no idea how much social media has affected their attention, memory, critical reasoning and social skills: the social repercussions will be felt for decades. And this isn't mentioning exposing easily malleable minds to propaganda paid for by states that see the UK as an enemy, all before their critical reasoning skills, and awareness of their emotions, and how their emotions can be used agai…

Tbh I've never understood why a strict non-negotiable ban on phones in schools hasn't been in place. This is an easy win with no negative consequences for adults.

I too don't like all this "age-verification" approach, but how does banning phones in school prevent kids / teens from using social media?

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

#179

Post by monssooon »

What do you think this will lead to? Will mesh networks explode in popularity or maybe the adults will just log their kids in - and UK will then make that illegal... But how to surveil the parents then.

Personally I fear this will just become whackamole against communication innovation. it feels to me like an addition in a broader attempt to control communications in general.

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

#180

Post by dom96 »

tarkin2 wrote: post #173
insurgent_dino wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree that parents should be the one protecting their children from this 'propaganda' and internet slop? Whilst I agree that social media can be overwhelmingly negative especially for young people, dont you recon that the risk to privacy and free-nature / increased surveillance of the internet is a greater problem?

Shouldn't parents be the ones to protect their children from the dangers of heroin, rather than an over-reaching state?

Funny example, because many argue that stopping the war on drugs would solve a lot of problems.
Post reply on HN