31–40 of 156 posts
Some form of malicious compliance is necessary here.
Like most I've been listening to this same old argument for nearly 30 years. Old enough now to know it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement, a significant chunk of young people won't even need a technical restriction beyond being told the behaviour is against the law because it's bad for them. But keep goading with "it's technically impossible" and wat…
It is not even 10% effective, and rightly so. It’s so absurdly easy to work around that the whole thing is silly. If the kids can’t be on Instagram they’ll find an equally welcoming place like Roblox to hang out.
You aren’t going to stop kids from being kids, and you probably shouldn’t try.
Note how we’re trusting all these US companies with their safety because any of these companies in the EU would immediately be regulated out of existence?
Like most I've been listening to this same old argument for nearly 30 years. Old enough now to know it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement, a significant chunk of young people won't even need a technical restriction beyond being told the behaviour is against the law because it's bad for them. But keep goading with "it's technically impossible" and wat…
At what cost though? Everyone will now need to submit real ID to access social media. Smaller social media sites will probably just shutdown since it’s unlikely they can afford the whole verification process.
Like most I've been listening to this same old argument for nearly 30 years. Old enough now to know it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement, a significant chunk of young people won't even need a technical restriction beyond being told the behaviour is against the law because it's bad for them. But keep goading with "it's technically impossible" and wat…
> it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement It is not even 10% effective, and rightly so. It’s so absurdly easy to work around that the whole thing is silly. If the kids can’t be on Instagram they’ll find an equally welcoming place like Roblox to hang out. You aren’t going to stop kids from being kids, and you probably shouldn’t try. Note how we’re trusting all these US companies with…
The tone gave it away before he finally disclosed but - shocker - the author is on the board of a social media company. Social media has been a pretty clear net-negative for society. The opinions of a guy in away connected with the industry are irrelevant. As usual when tech people are asked to do something to control the harms of their products the excuse is "you don't understand, it's not possible". The author thin…
Social media isn't the problem cellphones are. The Yookay isn't gonna ban those because they are useful surveillance devices. > 9 hours on a screen > do something about this Yeah ban cellphones. And I don't mean just for children. If you want to be a shut in nerd that spends "9 hours on a screen" then you'd best sit down in front of a computer.
Like most I've been listening to this same old argument for nearly 30 years. Old enough now to know it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to even be 50% effective to mark a substantial improvement, a significant chunk of young people won't even need a technical restriction beyond being told the behaviour is against the law because it's bad for them. But keep goading with "it's technically impossible" and wat…
It’s ‘technically impossible’ to stop convenience stores selling alcohol or pornography to minors, or to make people to adhere to contracts. Non-engineers don’t care what’s technically possible, they care what’s legally possible, or societally possible.
It’s the same thing when techies try to decipher what _exactly_ a law does and look for loopholes, when to the rest of society the standard is ‘whatever a reasonable person thinks it does’.
You need to make the argument about why the proposed thing is bad for society for it to be taken seriously.
Article mostly cites self-reported studies ie the kids think that the kids are doing alright, which is a different statement from the kids are actually doing alright. Most teachers seeing generational changes are raising five alarm fires around how badly the kids are doing. Actually testing kids is showing a startling reverse Flynn effect [1]. I’m curious what the author has in terms of actual evidence here? [1] http…
Most teachers have been asking for more resources for decades, warning of the consequences of not doing so. It seems a little on the nose to ignore their warnings and when the consequences manifest opt to blame something else entirely.
> Again, every detailed study on the subject has found that the number of teenagers who have negative experiences on social media is tiny. The study they linked is just self reported data from an internet survey. I'm sure that 13 year olds who don't get enough sleep because they're endlessly scrolling through ads, influencers, and disinformation don't see any problem with it the same way that a survey of alcoholics w…
It's interesting to see UK-based influencers all citing these weak studies (internet surveys) about how social media is not so bad for children, or bemoaning the huge loss for children whose access to educational videos will be cut. While the financial motive is clear, they must all believe it to an extent, because social media made their careers and changed their lives. The reality is that the vast majority of kids…
Of course I agree the pointless AI generated shit is a massive waste of time, but it doesn’t really matter what it actually is as long as it allows them to connect over a shared thing. I think it’s far more important we ensure there’s spaces for kids to meet that are not purely digital.
Fear not, Roblox will not be subject to the policy for the older games within Roblox and as such young children allegedly may be able to get the latest news from their possibly maybe perhaps adult groomers. The newer games within Roblox are purportedly going through a 16+ check. [1] [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9824zvpz9po
Isn’t it normally the case when politicians in any part of the world say they need to do something for the children, it’s just theatre to cover up them doing nothing or to hide legislation with a different purpose?
No, that’s a tech meme. If you’ve ever been near a PTA, you’ll understand that there is terrific civic potential in appealing to parents’ fears. The true think of the children has always been national security.
The cuts to education were the last thing that disengaged kids from the world, of course they are going to self soothe