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

241–250 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#241

Post by philipallstar »

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?

Here's an overview of the situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#242

Post by philipallstar »

kolektiv wrote: post #212
kraf wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is definitely true. It's "right wing" because the soft power is with the left (or was until maybe very recently) and so only principled people of the left (e.g. Bill Maher) and all the people of the right (either principled on speech or saying things that are more likely to be censored) are going to be talking about it.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#244

Post by inigyou »

philipallstar wrote: post #241
kraf wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here's an overview of the situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro

So people are getting arrested for tweeting they want to set fire to a hotel full of people?

Seems good to me

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#245

Post by inigyou »

bko wrote: post #228
kolektiv wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar What are they arrested for, or are you disputing the number?

Lucy Connolly was arrested for threatening to kill a thousand people, for example.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#246

Post by inigyou »

bko wrote: post #225
ruszki wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, the fact that these large platforms can block you and they block you randomly (which is the case of Reddit for me, because I dared to use privacy protecting extensions when I commented on a subreddit to which I wasn’t subscribed; Instagram permanently blocked me because I used VPN when I wanted to login) is way larger restriction on my speech than removing these harmful platforms completely. Currently, I’m…

Sure there was basically a cartel in social media. You saw coordinated censorship campaigns to ban the former president of the United States for example. But I wouldn't discount the amount of political interference there as well. The last administration admitted to flagging individual posts for the social media companies. But it's true there is a lot of coordinated censorship even without state interference. But this…

If it tends to resolve itself then why has it got worse not better? reality seems to contradict your position.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#247

Post by m000 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #196
worble wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree that the positive effects of Social Media is understated, and probably on purpose.

Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative. A generation has already grown with full distrust on what they learn from traditional media.

With that picture, addressing the (undeniable) negative effects of Social Media is only the sales pitch for introducing new legislation. The true goal of the legislation however is not to "save the children", but rather to ensure that the next generations will be obedient and meek.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#249

Post by inigyou »

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 is called contextual advertising, not targeted

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#250

Post by pendenthistory »

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.

Until lately I thought messaging apps like WhatsApp is ok, but this summer my eleven year old niece has been depressed, crying at the summer lake house with extended family because she can see her friends hanging out on WhatsApp. Incredibly toxic. Basically she can't enjoy the adventures we have here because of it. Even a simple thing like group chats completely destroy their brains.
Post reply on HN