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

The kids with phones are alright

heatherburns.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#41

Post by titanomachy »

nyeah wrote: post #22
retube wrote: post #3

Conflates a whole load of othogonal issues that really have nothing to do with each other

I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them? You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.

Not who you’re responding to, but I also don’t really think the article makes any kind of sensible argument that I can follow. Yes, it’s bad that a creepy drunk man used his phone to take pictures of teenage girls. Yes, it’s commendable that bystanders called him out. Yes, some countries are thinking of curtailing social media access for teenagers. I’m not sure what any of these things have to do with each other but the author presents them as somehow related, without drawing a coherent thread through them.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#43

Post by nsxwolf »

roelmore wrote: post #25
Lerc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing a means of bullying that leaves a trail is not the same thing as removing bullying. It's just removing undeniable bullying. If people truly agreed that children needed to be protected from the desires of others, teaching them that a particular religion is the true one would be restricted until they were of an age where they could provide informed consent. For some, communication devices are the only way to e…

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting or getting in the way of your primary point -- but I think it is relatively well recognized that, though cyberbullying might not be objectively worse than analog bullying (obviously direct physical abuse/altercations cant happen electronically....yet), the 24/7 pervasiveness, anonymity, lack of emotional feedback for the bully, reach, and permanence of cyberbullying has had a meanin…

I think a lot of people here just don't have kids of a relevant age yet. They assume either the bullying doesn't happen, or it isn't any different than bullying in person, or that it's easy to stop when it happens.

You can just not have phones, but it's socially isolating. You have to frequently audit what's on their phones because they often won't volunteer what's happening. You take them out of one group chat only to have the bullies reappear in another one.

Old fashioned bullying kept regular business hours. This gives them a portal into your home life 24/7, and that's the best case, when you put a ton of effort into managing it.

And if you're not having this problem somehow, you might want to double check and make sure your kid isn't the bully.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#44

Post by pjc50 »

puchatek wrote: post #31
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting reversal of the "think of the kids" argument, though: think of the kids who could have used their phones to document their mistreatment at the hands of alcoholic perverts.

Reminds me of the "good guys with guns" narrative tbh. Being able to document such transgressions is not enough of an argument to do a mass rollout of ad display technology IMHO.

The ability to film people on their phone is not the same as the ad display technology.

I think the argument upthread about "conflation" has a point, but .. it's social media itself that forces the conflation. You can't just have a social network that lets you communicate with your community, it has to get tied up with international politics and exploitative advertising.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#46

Post by jonstewart »

This essay extends one anecdote involving 16+ year old teenagers to the unsupported conclusion that kids should have phones and those who wish to restrict that are all wealthy 1% right wing authoritarians. Then with the personal note it seems clear that the core of the essay stems from the author's own personal trauma/experience.

I don't disagree that big adtech's reliance on dopamine-driven addictive behavior is real evil, but regulations that at least wall kids off from that makes sense and there's all kinds of research to suggest as much, in contrast to a personal essay about a video online.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#47

Post by StingyJelly »

Kids with phones are alright. Attention economy of social media is not. As did tabaco companies, they (soc. media tech giants) push proposals to regulate phone use based on age in hopes that the their information asymmetry advantage and addictive dark patterns that are the problem in the first place won't be regulated and they can keep exploiting the public held in their trap by network effect.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#48

Post by II2II »

nyeah wrote: post #22
retube wrote: post #3

Conflates a whole load of othogonal issues that really have nothing to do with each other

I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them? You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.

Perhaps there's stuff going on in the UK that I'm missing but:

- I have not heard of a general cell phone ban for children and youth. They may "ban" the use of phones in schools (in reality: phones must remain in a bag or locker) and parents may choose to forbid their children from having phones (which is difficult to enforce after a certain age), but nothing general.

One may argue that children and youth may use phones to document improper or abusive situations in schools, which certainly can happen, but that is not the dominant use of phones by children and youth in schools and there are other avenues to document such circumstances.

- Most of the regulations we are discussing today are related to access to adult content or sites that are run in an exploitive manner (e.g. "the algorithm"). I have heard of no prohibitions of children and youth accessing sites outside of that context, even though there is plenty of room to question where the boundaries should be.

So I will agree that the author is either misrepresenting or conflating the regulations, to the point where the article is nonsense.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#49

Post by squigz »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove the phones and the problem will remain, which is people’s desire to consume detrimental content, or content in detrimental amounts. Before phones/computers/internet, it was garbage on television channels. Propaganda on 24/7 “news” channels, “reality” tv shows, etc.

So it's not propagandists that are the problem, but rather the people they target? That's an odd take. Maybe we should've shown a little more spine when they asked us to build a medium for the strong would use to prey on the weak. Maybe we're the problem.

It's not that odd of a take to recognize that the people abusing their power and those eating it up are both part of the problem in their own ways.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#50

Post by nyeah »

titanomachy wrote: post #41
nyeah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them? You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.

Not who you’re responding to, but I also don’t really think the article makes any kind of sensible argument that I can follow. Yes, it’s bad that a creepy drunk man used his phone to take pictures of teenage girls. Yes, it’s commendable that bystanders called him out. Yes, some countries are thinking of curtailing social media access for teenagers. I’m not sure what any of these things have to do with each other but…

The article explains very clearly what these issues have to do with each other in this particular case.
Post reply on HN