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

311–320 of 598 posts

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

#311

Post by kelseyfrog »

macintux wrote: post #304
kelseyfrog wrote: post #299

Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.

Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm very skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents. And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.

If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?

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

#312

Post by idle_zealot »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #309
Grombobulous wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens. Your proposal to punish parents does the same. How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?

Because corporations don't have children? Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.

I don't know, if the biggest companies in the world were setting up outside schools and in cul-de-sacs and aggressively selling colorful heroin with cartoon mascots my first reaction wouldn't be to blame parents for failing to prevent the childhood heroin addiction epidemic and call for arresting them.

I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.

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

#313

Post by spacebeer »

nonethewiser wrote: post #275
michaelt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any evidence social media is improving mental health? It feels absurd to even ask.

Forums and Fediverse could do that, if you choose wisely and use it responsibly

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

#314

Post by Grombobulous »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #309
Grombobulous wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens. Your proposal to punish parents does the same. How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?

Because corporations don't have children? Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.

Certainly a lot of people do need to approach parenting better.

However, I simultaneously think that a lot of “personal responsibility” culture is very convenient ideology for corporations.

Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is a failing of personal obligation, agency, and responsibility.

A whole bunch of things that make good parenting so difficult are directly the fault of corporations.

There is zero mandatory paid parental leave in the United States. I wonder how much corporate money goes into maintaining that status quo?

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

#315

Post by pibaker »

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…

I find it kind of hilarious that we spent ages trying to make teenagers not hang out in public spaces, not to drink, not to fuck. And now they have finally obliged, we start to take their obedience as a sign of declining mental health.

Maybe kids would be better off if we stopped regulating every facet of their lives under the pretence of safety and make them feel if they make one mistake they will ruin their life because now they can't get into a good college or something.

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

#316

Post by protocolture »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #299

Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.

I hope someone punishes your parents for letting you on here.

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

#317

Post by paytonjjones »

Grombobulous wrote: post #303
kelseyfrog wrote: post #299

Parents won't parent without a change in incentives. That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.

Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens. Your proposal to punish parents does the same. How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?

That's great messaging, but what exactly are you materially proposing that's different?

If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.

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

#318

Post by protocolture »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #311
macintux wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm very skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents. And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.

If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?

Isnt this your position? Why dont you defend it?

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

#319

Post by SidewaysView »

ghastmaster wrote: post #296
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?

Politics works that way sometimes. It could be a fad. It could be the culmination of years of the intelligentsia, political, and corporate benefactors finding this to be the right time to move forward. There has been a lot of propaganda since the mid teens targeting the social and psychological impacts of social media. It is certainly plausible that some group or the aforementioned entities had a big part of this. Re…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN