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

The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#111

Post by inigyou »

joe_mamba wrote: post #80
Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, and the wishes of all parents together != the wishes of the UK government This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] "As YouGov has shown previously, such a policy would be widely popular with the general public. In our latest survey, looking more specifically at the views of parents, we find that 77% of those with children under the age of 18 would support a…

>This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] Because parents like most voters, are incredibly stupid, and just want to delegate accountability of their kids to the state, not that they actually understand the repercussions of what they're supporting. Same with brexit. Voters want a scapegoat on why their kids are stupid(er), and the government is happy to offer a mon…

Ah, yes. Whenever a policy that you personally dislike is widely supported, it's because all its supporters are incredibly stupid, because you are always right.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#112

Post by inigyou »

cebert wrote: post #8
ungreased0675 wrote: post #4

The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.

Parents are there to protect their children. The potential harm caused by eroded privacy and reduced control over our devices is not worth the perceived benefits of this policy in ensuring children’s safety.

Right. Cigarette bans for children are unconstitutional.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#113

Post by inigyou »

sunaookami wrote: post #79
ungreased0675 wrote: post #4

The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.

This is not about protecting kids, when will you finally understand?

It's both. Everyone except libertarians wants kids to be protected because right now we're harming them incredibly quickly. Also, Facebook wants that to be implemented by ID scans.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#114

Post by inigyou »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #12

The whole idea of this is broken, since so much of our collective knowledge is locked away in YouTube/Reddit. It's making a law against children in libraries because there are adult books in it.

That's a problem. Reddit is already dead, half the subreddits are banned, half the remaining OG posts have been edited into random words in protest, 80% of content is now LLMs farming karma. Maybe we should have built human society on a more stable foundation?

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#115

Post by krapp »

ilovecake1984 wrote: post #87
krapp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be a controversial statement here, but for better or worse, Youtube is a modern Library of Alexandria. It archives a significant amount of human knowledge and culture in video form, and for a lot of it, there is no backup. Big, popular channels do push their viewers to alternative platforms like Patreon because of Youtube's censorship guidelines and arbitrary demonetization, but a lot of valuable content is…

YouTube is very mixed. Putting short form content on it was a mistake. It’s only not trash if you use it correctly. Watch some videos by some racists, you get fed videos making you racist. It has all the negatives of social media. Ideal the UK would just make platforms responsible as publishers. This is the dividing line which should apply for under 18s.

> It’s only not trash if you use it correctly. > Watch some videos by some racists, you get fed videos making you racist.

So don't watch some videos by some racists, and curate your feed properly. I don't see why the government needs to get involved here.

>This is the dividing line which should apply for under 18s.

The problem is the dividing line won't stay there. A lot of people want social media regulated or banned outright for adults as well. The incentives to restrict freedom of speech and control narratives are all-consuming. Definitions will be intentionally vague so that they can apply to any platform that governments want to censor.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#116

Post by joe_mamba »

inigyou wrote: post #111
joe_mamba wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] Because parents like most voters, are incredibly stupid, and just want to delegate accountability of their kids to the state, not that they actually understand the repercussions of what they're supporting. Same with brexit. Voters want a scapegoat on why their kids are stupid(er), and the government is happy to offer a mon…

Ah, yes. Whenever a policy that you personally dislike is widely supported, it's because all its supporters are incredibly stupid, because you are always right.

It's not just because I am right and they're wrong in this case, it's because as the saying goes, "The Best Argument Against Democracy' Is 5-Minute Conversation with Average Voter".

And British voters have proven that several times over that they're not good at making decisions which is why their country has been in decline. Again, see their Brexit choice as proof.

But sure, you go and personally attack me with no arguments as if that means anything.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#117

Post by lux-lux-lux »

inigyou wrote: post #104
anthk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then do your parenting and stop limiting the rights of the rest.

"crack dealers are trying to sell crack to my kids at street corners, can we ban that?" "No! Just do your parenting!"

> if I replace ‘internet access’ with ‘crack,’ then that sure changes the argument!

Damn dude really makes you think

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#118

Post by rexpop »

cowboylowrez wrote: post #101

There is nothing good on the internet for kids. If we ban kids from the internet this will all go away. Make a smartphone every bit as regulated as alcohol or cigarettes or sexual intercourse. If a parent is found providing their kids alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or internet, we have to hold them accountable and rehabilitate the kids from their traumatic experience. These parents deserve serious prison terms, and those…

I was afforded limited exposure to alcohol and sex starting around age 13, and I've got a vastly healthier relationship with the two than the rest of my society.

I think the internet, however, is a much greater threat to growing minds.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#119

Post by cowboylowrez »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #106
cowboylowrez wrote: post #101

There is nothing good on the internet for kids. If we ban kids from the internet this will all go away. Make a smartphone every bit as regulated as alcohol or cigarettes or sexual intercourse. If a parent is found providing their kids alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or internet, we have to hold them accountable and rehabilitate the kids from their traumatic experience. These parents deserve serious prison terms, and those…

Banning kids from alcohol, cigarettes, and sex sure did work. I can't think of a single kid I went to school with that did any of these things (and certainly not me). All those laws and rules were absolutely effective in preventing us as kids from doing them. /s

Yeah but we can sanction the parents. If your friends at school were having sex with strangers for money and their parents were doing the pimping, society would like to have a word.

Why is letting your kids sext with adult strangers any different? Is it because the only "pimping" you are doing is giving in to your brat nagging for an iphone?

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#120

Post by cindyllm »

inigyou wrote: post #113
sunaookami wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about protecting kids, when will you finally understand?

It's both. Everyone except libertarians wants kids to be protected because right now we're harming them incredibly quickly. Also, Facebook wants that to be implemented by ID scans.

[dead]
Post reply on HN