Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

141–150 of 175 posts

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

#141

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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#143

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…

I'm sorry to tell you this but you'll have to decide between "The British government is doing terrible things that does not represent the British people" or "people are extremely stupid, democracy is terrible and we must in fact make decisions for them"

You can't actually bring up the first one because you disagree with me and then the second one when you realize you also disagree with the British people. Either you like democracy or you don't, you don't get to decide that based on what route you want to take in an internet argument.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm pretty sure declining birthrates are caused by the smartphones, either that or the AI lied to me again but I'm still pretty sure its the smartphones. "Recent economic research links the rise of smartphones to the persistent decline in birth rates. A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study estimates that early smartphone adoption accounts for 33% to 52% of the drop in the U.S. general fertility rate,…

This whole thread is dumpster fire of sovereign citizens caught in AI psychosis supporting authoritarian bullshit.

Yeah, this isn't the HN I remember, but the one I am, unfortunately, stuck in.

Slow but steady reddification of HN audience (judging by the comments) is its biggest existential threat imo. And the worst part is that, unlike with the actual reddit, this isn't due to the platform owners/admins at all (as I can only think of good things to say about @dang and the HN itself).

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#146

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…

[flagged]

Can you please edit out swipes from your HN comments, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Your comment would be fine without the first and last sentences.

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

#147

All the pro-freedom arguments ring hollow and insincere to the wider world. From an outside perspective, the tech industry/community has repeatedly demonstrated that it's actually very pro-surveillance and child exploitation. From that same outside perspective, another argument of 'hey, we have to combat all attempts at protecting children to avoid surveillance' just sounds like self-serving lies. You can argue that…

I feel like if there's a bad actor... this kind of legislation just ignores it / the problem.

Meanwhile kids will still find ways to do what they wish online and it will be hidden... adults exposed to these same bad actors.

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

#148

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 don't think internet puritanism imposed by government will protect anyone.

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

#149
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you please edit out swipes from your HN comments, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . Your comment would be fine without the first and last sentences.

I dunno, there's a definite tendency to say extreme and trivially falsifiable things on HN as if they were fact. I think those should be called out because they really derail rational discussion and encourage "us vs them" narratives.

He is clearly exaggerating for effect so much that it doesn't make sense any more, and IMO that is what leads to unproductive debate. It should be called out as such.

The last sentence is a genuine question.

Post reply on HN