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

161–170 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#161

Post by Nursie »

I'm with the "This whole article is a non-sequitur" crowd.

The old pervert using his camera shouldn't be doing that. His behaviour was not OK.

Nobody is talking about keeping kids off social media because their behaviour is not OK. They're talking about keeping kids off social media because they believe it's harmful to them, and that the companies designing the products know it's harmful and addictive.

We can disagree about whether or not that's true, or what actions might be helpful (or not), but there is no common thread with the example given.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#162

Post by specproc »

NoPicklez wrote: post #149
specproc wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it has to do with social media bans, is that the incident was propagated on social media. The author is arguing that the ability to shame others on the internet, should not be restricted to the old and powerful. In answer to your first question, what do we do. We regulate the platforms, not the users. There are loads of things that can be done to reduce online harm, that don't just say "OK, you're over this age,…

Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age. I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.

The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations.

I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#164

Post by fragmede »

yogorenapan wrote: post #159
fragmede wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.

I got my first bug bounty at 16. Not having access to compute would've drastically changed the direction of my life. I wouldn't have been able to afford university & would likely be working on a farm right now like my cousins

Access to a desktop computer vs a smartphone that they bring to bed with TikTok on it are different though. What was your bug bounty for?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#165

Post by NoPicklez »

specproc wrote: post #162
NoPicklez wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age. I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.

The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations. I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?

I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing offences doesn't mean we should allow underage people drinking.

From my perspective I think we do need to ask social media companies to reduce algorithmic feeds that create echo chambers or as you say provide transparent metrics on this. Social media companies should potentially ban infinite scroll/short form video content, however this is going to be difficult to do if its based on age as it will fall back to the ID/age verification issues.

Feeds should also not show content considered R18+ unless manually hidden, this shouldn't be able to be removed. There is some horrifying content that can pop up on these platforms that young people shouldn't see unsolicited.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#166

Post by whazor »

anon291 wrote: post #128
NoPicklez wrote: post #96

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impa…

Kids shouldn't have smartphones until much later, like late teenage years. A flip phone for kids who are out of the house regularly with some contacts is fine. No need to be a Luddite, but what do kids possibly get out of a phone? If I didn't have work and to chauffeur people around, id toss mine too.

I'm not 100% sure yet but I think an iPhone can be configured such that toxic social media apps cannot be used.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#167

Post by aethertron »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #157
InvisibleUp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all of YouTube. There’s some good stuff on there, just not in the “Shorts” tab.

> There’s some good stuff on there, just not in the “Shorts” tab. Why do people get so weird about the shorts tab? There are perfectly good videos in there, they're just tilted weird. You can fit quality content into 3 minutes. And remember Elsagate? That was entirely landscape videos.

There are good Shorts. One problem is a flick of the thumb scrolls you down to the next, then the next, and many are crap. The uncertainty about whether you're going to see crap or gold is part of what makes recommendation-based infinite scrolling addictive.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#168

Post by specproc »

NoPicklez wrote: post #165
specproc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations. I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?

I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing…

Interesting framing in "we should ask" and "social media companies should ban". We have sovereign states that make laws, companies must comply with them if they wish to make money in our markets.

Otherwise, I think my perspective here is very similar. I'd personally emphasise legal publisher responsibility, a repeal of Section 230 in American.

By absolving social media platforms of legal responsibility for the content they publish, we've allowed some very unpleasant scenes to flourish in the most mainstream of places.

Well with you on the issues of addictive design. I'd throw in data harvesting, sketchy advertising, and increasingly platform- level political bias.

Age restrictions simply increase the age at which users are exposed to harms, rather than addressing those harms themselves.

These platforms have become staggeringly wealthy and powerful, it is them what needs to be controlled, not kids.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#169

Post by marcus_holmes »

NoPicklez wrote: post #96

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impa…

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media.

Do we know this? As far as I can tell, the studies are ambivalent at best. Some kids are damaged, others benefit.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#170

Post by marcus_holmes »

curtisblaine wrote: post #143
NoPicklez wrote: post #96

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impa…

Question: aren't you allowed to photograph or film anyone you want in public? Or the target being underage somehow removes this right? I always thought you can film whoever you want, but you can't publish what you filmed in some cases.

There's a difference between legal and ethical.
Post reply on HN