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

191–200 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#191

Post by literalAardvark »

sssilver wrote: post #183
netniuq wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We regulate the platforms, not the users: We ban (most? all?) targeted advertising. If we still have to go further, we force tech giants to publish their recommendation algorithms and aggregated user data (e.g. statistics about time spent on what types of content on the platform by user cohort) If we still have to go further, we can adapt policy restricting concrete addictive usage-patterns (e.g. the infinite scroll…

I'm extremely against ads, so I sympathize greatly with your sentiment. But what does it mean to "ban targeted advertising"? Will we ban posters along highways that advertise car wreck lawyers? Where do you draw that line?

That's contextual advertising, not targeted as such.

A targeted example for this case would be to switch the digital billboard to tampons because they read your number plates, visually identified the driver is a woman, and your recent texts with a friend mentioned needing some.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#192

Post by alt227 »

p1necone wrote: post #144

"The kids are alright" is evergreen. So much of the are doomed rhetoric is pure nonsense, a lot of that rhetoric is on here.

Phones and social media are a completely new type of pacifying and attention stealing threat which we have only just begun to discover the effects of. This is not your standard 'kids are doomed' rhetoric.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#194

Post by bko »

gherkinnn wrote: post #156
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…

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack…

Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think.

What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes.

At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violations like kids must be 13 or older. But they choose to look the other way and target only things that's a threat to their political future.

Social media helps organization and political action. Maybe you don't like the outcome at this point in time but it's a powerful weapon against those in power. It's no wonder politicians will try to neuter it. But it will not help anyone but themselves.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#195

Post by jhbadger »

worble wrote: post #187
gherkinnn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack…

Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy. Social media needs to be heavily regulated to the point where it's safe for everyone, or banned entir…

For starters, what's "social media"? It's kind of a undefinable phrase. Obviously Facebook and Instagram are agreed to be "social media".But is Youtube social media? How about HN? Or any website with a comment section?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#196

Post by RandomLensman »

worble wrote: post #187
gherkinnn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack…

Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy. Social media needs to be heavily regulated to the point where it's safe for everyone, or banned entir…

I don't think there is that agreement that it is in total a net negative to society.

That said, with bans upcoming or in force in a lot places, what measures should we monitor to see improvements in wellbeing etc. (screen time isn't one there, I'd say)? What do we do if those do not go up noticably?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#197

Post by cubefox »

ColdStream wrote: post #148
RetroTechie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smartphones are fomes peccati . Smartphones aren't, some apps on them are. (besides being unneeded or a nuisance in some situations)

I have said it for a long time. Look at the original iPhone release. It was a hyper focused device that was designed to consolidate devices, make using a phone easier so that you could get on with your day. Once the app store and opened the gate for social media to wonder in, that is when these things got turned into potential addiction machines.

It already had a browser. You don't need an app when you have a browser. The addiction is built-in as a latent capability.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#198

Post by throwfaraway135 »

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 need freedom to make their own decisions, without that they won't grow to be self realized adults.

For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#199

Post by Dylan16807 »

aethertron wrote: post #167
Dylan16807 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And that uncertainty doesn't apply to watching normal videos? I dunno, if shorts gets unreliable because it ran out of the channels I regularly visit then I just leave.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#200

Post by kraf »

bko wrote: post #194
gherkinnn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack…

Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think. What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes. At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violatio…

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. Can you share a real world example of a case like this? You're saying a social media comment about a crime is somehow punished harshly and much harsher than the crime itself?
Post reply on HN