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

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 598 posts

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#251

Post by mc32 »

jschveibinz wrote: post #182

I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…

But it's not just teenagers, it's also adults who are harmed by overexposure to algorithmically presented content. Obvs we can't restrict adults from legal content but we can legislate against algorythmic content.

The NPR bit sounds like what I'd imagine I could expect from people who are very good at pushing junk food -they've got good science behind flavoring and light addiction (like you don't get withdrawals from not eating doritoes) and the same with social media. they have very good science behind getting people to spend more and more time viewing their content not matter what. So I take that bit on NPR with a grain of salt. In my experience, NPR often presents studies based on small samples for whatever reason. Maybe to go against the grain, maybe to get people to think, who knows...

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#252

Post by zmgsabst »

underlipton wrote: post #231
bArray wrote: post #225

Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?

Of course. They meet in Davos every year.

Also in DC, eg, at the Bilderberg meeting.

Somehow the US ones always fly under the radar: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Jackson Hole banker meetup, Bohemian Grove, etc.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#253

Post by j-bos »

anjiro wrote: post #206
GeekyBear wrote: post #201

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

Same applies to alcohol at a friend's house, cigarette's behind the shop, and any other sort of restrictions when away from parents. Ultimately kid's will either take to heart their parent's guidnace or they won't.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#255

Post by kelseyfrog »

GeekyBear wrote: post #201

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

If we expect the behavior of parents to change we must change their incentives.

Providing access to social media must be met with the same punishment as offering heroin to children. The monopoly on violence must be brought to bear on parents who neglect parental responsibilities.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#256

Post by antonvs »

pdonis wrote: post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

It’s not just “social media”. Any site that’s funded by advertising fits that description.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#257

Post by mschuster91 »

michaelt wrote: post #197
jschveibinz wrote: post #182

I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…

There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before. Obviously it's difficult to pin a 20-year trend on a single cause. But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones; and with social med…

> There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before.

Yeah. No surprise. The generation of my parents used to run free in the woods. My generation was limited to whatever bicycles offered. And when I have children, I'll probably have to be happy if they can walk to a friend's without some busybody calling the cops on them.

And drinking? Don't get me started on that one - same here. My parents' generation distilled their own spirits (that's banned in Germany these days). My generation had beer. My children? Assuming drinking is still a thing when they're at that age, I'll have to fear getting the cops called on me if they ever drink enough to end up in a hospital (which is a routine thing these days).

Generally: Third spaces (e.g. libraries, "youth centers") are closing down, others (malls, parks) try everything possible to eliminate youth loitering or, god forbid, making noise. And that's if they can actually afford something. It's ridiculous how expensive basic stuff such as fast food or ice cream has gotten.

In contrast to that, phones are free-ish (well, parents buy them for their kids anyway, and mobile data plans aren't a big deal either).

> and with social media use as common as it is, almost every kid who commits suicide will have recently used social media.

Bullying always used to be a thing, yes. But that's a legitimate complaint, the mechanics of social media and cameras being ever present have made bullying much more severe in scale. Hell if I were young today, I'd have probably ended up arrested multiple times if there was some video camera rolling around all time.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#258

Post by laughing_man »

bArray wrote: post #225

Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?

I would have used the word "suspicious", but yeah.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#259

Post by jolmg »

zmgsabst wrote: post #250
pdonis wrote: post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

Your bank almost certainly uses your personal information to advertise or market to you — and so seems like it would be covered by that definition.

Wouldn't imply their needing any more information than they'd already have.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#260

Post by laughing_man »

anjiro wrote: post #206
GeekyBear wrote: post #201

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

There's a big difference between your kid accessing inappropriate things at a friends house for a few hours a month and having that stuff at his or her fingertips 24/7.

If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.

Post reply on HN