The kids with phones are alright • Hacker News Board

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#211

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:49 AM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #101

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…

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

Not unconditionally, but some truly benefit from them, if the parents teach them not to use social media in a harmful way.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#212

Post by kolektiv » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:52 AM UTC

kraf wrote: post #200

bko wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a common (and somewhat right-wing) trope, but it's not really true. Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar. That isn't to say the UK has no problem with the balance of freedom of expression and regulation, but it is nothing like the impression you'd get from some sources. There are some high-profile cases which are commonly misrepresented to support these claims.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#213

Post by avazhi » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:52 AM UTC

Documenting offences?

What offences would those be? It isn’t an offence to record somebody on a train or else the person who recorded the video of the guy also committed an offence (and neither that person nor the guy did).

Didn’t read past that part. Mindless outrage culture is neither intellectually interesting nor healthy to be around.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#214

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:53 AM UTC

cubefox wrote: post #197

ColdStream wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The browser itself is not the problem, but the way the platforms design themselves to be very addictive.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#215

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

simplyluke wrote: post #118

The article spends a long time conflating actual proposed policy in the UK with things that aren't being proposed and sound much worse. I did some googling, the UK's gone a bit further than the US in proposing that No one's proposing banning teenagers from owning smart phones entirely. I would agree that not allowing 17 year old girls going out to have phones on trains would be bad policy, if that was actually a thin…

The harm mainly comes from the addictive, manipulative algorithm designed to provoke the user, and not from the ability to communicate.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#216

Post by j45 » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

Lerc wrote: post #123

what wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So neither you, nor your daughter, have any experience with the issue?

I seem to recall both of us being children once, although admittedly not at the same time. The research my daughter does as part of her charity work probably counts as well.

Learning about something doesn't invalidate it entirely on that basis alone, just like the experience of one parent doesn't speak for all parents, or those concerned about the impacts of phones on kids (who are future adults).

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#217

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:55 AM UTC

api wrote: post #58

jimbokun wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, you cannot block one harmful one without blocking a thousand legitimate ones.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#218

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:56 AM UTC

j45 wrote: post #4

It's important to define kids. The article mentions 15-16 years of age. The best practice is to keep kids off smartphones with full internet, full social media, touchscreen and scrolling at least until 13. It doesn't mean they can't have other kinds of devices. This is a wide open market category.

So force parents to give them devices running an even more nonfree, even more crippled OS. At least on a smartphone you can run GNU/Linux.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#219

Post by roundabout-host » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 9:58 AM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #16

This whole article just boils down to the argument "If badly-behaved adults are allowed to have cameras, why shouldn't well-behaved children have access to for-profit social media platforms designed to addict them and feed them misinformation?" It's complete nonsense. The conversation in the UK right now isn't about whether or not teenagers should be allowed to own cell phones; it's about whether they should be allow…

The problem is not the ability to communicate, but rather the addiction generated by those algorithms. They should absolutely be regulated, for all ages.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#220

Post by gherkinnn » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 10:03 AM UTC

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 have no idea what you're on about.

I said "regulate the proverbial crack" and gave two concrete examples of things going wrong. At no point did I hint at "stop people from conversing freely".