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

51–60 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#51

Post by II2II »

nrabulinski wrote: post #11
j45 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age 16-17 is very different than Ages 5-10 for kids to carry a device. The former is no issue. I just don't think the author's take is nuanced as they think. Kids (Age 5-13) safety is of ultimate importance. Devices, independently are also a major issue in schools. Social media use of bullying also is a major issue. To the point they are banned.

Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream. A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize. I met people some of whom I’m friends to this day, but more importantly - I could meet people to go out with, to talk to. Should we ban schools then? Because school grounds are famously place where the most bul…

> Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream.

The differences with bullying via social media are: the difficulty to escape it in space or time as well as its reach. I don't think we can argue that social media is not an issue on these fronts.

> A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize.

I agree, but I also have to wonder if the nature of the Internet has changed to the point where the benefits are secondary to the costs. In the early days, it was far easier to access the positives and far easier to ignore the negatives since we made explicit decisions about where to go. While you can still do that today, by avoiding social media, it is far more difficult. The mainstream has consolidated to the point where you pretty much have to isolate yourself to avoid it. Much of what mainstream social media sites provide is pushed to the user in some for or another. On top of all of that, the online world had far less reach in the past. At least when I was younger, the bullies simply didn't go online and while exploitive people were online there seemed to be far fewer of them.

As for the Internet wide surveillance: I don't think that is the driving force behind the current regulations. We already have Internet wide surveillance. That is why your proposal is all the more important, the bit about moderation and scrutinizing big tech, because we let them get away with far too much.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#52

Post by Lerc »

nsxwolf wrote: post #43
roelmore wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well I guess it is true that I don't have children of that age. My daughter is on the board of a charity that deals with youth issues though.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#53

Post by psd1 »

jimbokun wrote: post #19

> These are groups who, culturally, do not want their children to have agency over their own lives, People who are not yet ready to have full agency of their own lives is more or less the definition of children. Does she also expect children to have full time jobs, pay taxes, pay all their own bills and rent, etc etc?

"These are groups that i invented".

I know a few upper-crust families, including a hereditary title. They all care about their children, like the majority of human beings. But this blogger doesn't think we hate posh people enough, so necessarily they abuse their young.

It snacks of "jews will eat your baby". It's not the vitriol that offends me, it's the stupidity.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#54

Post by titanomachy »

nyeah wrote: post #50
titanomachy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t agree. Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant in this case. And I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that 16-year-olds shouldn’t have phones, or that 16-year-old girls are at fault when an old man secretly makes videos of them. Both these groups seem like imagined bogeymen that the article is railing against.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#55

Post by api »

Lerc wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #10

The problem is not phones. Phones are fine. The problem is specific apps that make use of addiction engineering. These are bad on desktops too but the extreme portability of phones makes them a hundred times more potent. Like all risks it doesn’t affect all kids equally either. Some are less vulnerable for various cognitive reasons just like some are less prone to chemical addiction. Kids with wealthier and/or more e…

Would it not be a better approach to remove any incentive to provide an addictive product. Companies don't do that just to be evil. Evil is just the byproduct of money. Make it illegal to advertise to anyone under the age of 18. Make it illegal to trade data about anyone under the age of 18. What incentive would then remain? I don't think they will do it for the long term gains of training behaviour for when they are…

At the very least I think we should seriously consider taxing advertising.

It’d be almost impossible to pick and choose so just tax all of it. I think the knock on effects would be positive. It’s an almost unmitigated vice at this point and is the main engine behind this stuff.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#56

Post by api »

Telaneo wrote: post #33
api wrote: post #10

The problem is not phones. Phones are fine. The problem is specific apps that make use of addiction engineering. These are bad on desktops too but the extreme portability of phones makes them a hundred times more potent. Like all risks it doesn’t affect all kids equally either. Some are less vulnerable for various cognitive reasons just like some are less prone to chemical addiction. Kids with wealthier and/or more e…

I agree. Even the platonic ideal of something like Facebook isn't really a problem (assume a Facebook with a chronological feed which shows nothing but what your friends and liked pages have posted, and it'll be a lot less addicting than what we have today, and a lot more social!). It's possible to have a phone and not have any apps on it which are engineered to make you addicted. If the relevant companies behaved th…

Facebook was on balance good until the algorithmic timeline.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#57

Post by fumeux_fume »

nyeah wrote: post #38
fumeux_fume wrote: post #37

So this is the new hot take? That kids need unfettered access to smart phones and the internet to toughen them up? Absolutely cringe.

TFA gives an example where kids are at risk and an old person is misusing a phone. It is clearly not advocating for this scenario to occur more often. Can you show anything else to indicate that the conclusion is "toughen them up"?

> Many other people, observing our current policy context, have also called out how smartphone and social media bans for young adults (and we are talking about that particular group here, not toddlers and primary schoolers) risk swaddling them in cotton wool and then releasing them into the world, without critical adulting skills, on the day they hit a magic birthday.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#58

Post by api »

jimbokun wrote: post #26
api wrote: post #10

The problem is not phones. Phones are fine. The problem is specific apps that make use of addiction engineering. These are bad on desktops too but the extreme portability of phones makes them a hundred times more potent. Like all risks it doesn’t affect all kids equally either. Some are less vulnerable for various cognitive reasons just like some are less prone to chemical addiction. Kids with wealthier and/or more e…

The problem isn’t guns. The problem is bullets, which guns just happen to make go very fast.

Guns have only one main function. Phones have thousands.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#59

Post by RetroTechie »

Papazsazsa wrote: post #34

The focus on children needing their phones controlled is the correct instinct, incorrectly applied to a too-narrow group. Smartphones are fomes peccati .

> Smartphones are fomes peccati.

Smartphones aren't, some apps on them are.

(besides being unneeded or a nuisance in some situations)

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#60

Post by FeteCommuniste »

II2II wrote: post #51
nrabulinski wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream. A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize. I met people some of whom I’m friends to this day, but more importantly - I could meet people to go out with, to talk to. Should we ban schools then? Because school grounds are famously place where the most bul…

> Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream. The differences with bullying via social media are: the difficulty to escape it in space or time as well as its reach. I don't think we can argue that social media is not an issue on these fronts. > A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize. I agree,…

> The differences with bullying via social media are: the difficulty to escape it in space or time as well as its reach.

Just log off of Instagram / TikTok / wherever. Or block the people bothering you. If anything I'd say digital bullying is easier to escape because unlike school kids aren't required to be on those sites six to eight hours a day, and blocking someone needs a lot less effort and cooperation from adults than reporting them to school authorities.

Post reply on HN