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

311–320 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#311

Post by bombcar »

XorNot wrote: post #270
recursive-call wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think generally the argument is that these usually aren’t credible threats, they’re hyperbole, and the police are overstepping by arresting people for saying they’ll do something when they have no evidence that that person would actually do that. A free society doesn’t arrest someone for saying “I’m going to burn down so-and-so’s house.” It waits until you actually go to so-and-so’s house with a can of petrol, and…

Sending death threats has never been legal. The statical lie with the UK numbers is the vast majority of cases are about the use of messaging services in domestic violence cases.

It’s the same problem as amber alerts - the stories you here about are the dramatic stranger danger ones, but the vast majority of the statistics are “boring” custody disputes.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#312

Post by NeutralCrane »

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

Well they didn’t say 16 years olds should not having access to compute so your point is irrelevant.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#313

Post by bombcar »

black_knight wrote: post #238
dgellow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think a 17 years old should be protected from political content? They are pretty much an adult and are able to vote in some places…

I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.

I suspect that political ands anre more about laundering money from campaigns to friends than about actually affecting the election.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#314

Post by zug_zug »

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…

My proposal for step 1 -- Allow people to "ban themselves" from certain social media for certain period. Every platform/app MUST support the ability to set limits on usage for all time periods (hour/day/week/month) and enforce those. Also allow the user to set blacklist times. Also allow the user to set a "cooldown" period on any blacklist changes.

This is the low-hanging-fruit, for those of us who KNOW it's an addiction and are actively trying to quit, but struggling to limit our usage. I use leechblock NG which is amazing for browser-based sites, but wouldn't really help a kid who's having the isuse on apps.

There are many further steps to take, but I think we should all align on the most obvious ones first and build up from there.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#315

Post by karahime »

alt227 wrote: post #296
karahime wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old style rat drug experiments with rats in a barren cage being administered morphine are barely a good behavioral model for rats, let alone people. This is the aforementioned moral panic language. If the point was that solid it wouldn't need to make this multi-step analogy.

We can agree to disagree, thats fine. You give your kids mobiles and tablets from toddler age and I will bring mine up in the physical world and introduce them to tech gently over time, finally giving them full smart devices later in life when they are responsible enough to manage their own time. > If the point was that solid it wouldn't need to make this multi-step analogy. Analogies are always useful to show logica…

You fall back on agree to disagree, twice, here, when you're accusing me of thinking only of my own perspective. It's not courteous to agree with something for the sake of agreement, nor is misrepresenting what we can say from an experiment useful for "showing patterns". You can use analogies without making poorly constructed, sweepingly grandiose ones.

Beyond that, like any parent, you have a lot of latitude in how you choose to treat your children, but I'm not going to agree that isolating them from computers is helping just because you frame it as "gentle", and I'm not going to say that we should replicate that elsewhere.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#316

Post by 3848484894 »

kmitz wrote: post #301

I say this is a click bait article. The guy is taking a contrarian view on smartphone use by young people, with weak and very subjective arguments. > the impetus for the most authoritarian internet regulation in the UK, including the Very strong take with no justification at all. What we observe is that many developped countries with different political orientations are currently taking action against harm caused by…

he's just mad he can't groom kids on his dicord as easily anymore

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#317

Post by darkwater »

nekusar wrote: post #283
darkwater wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are fundamentally different because they are not centralized and, if they are going to be centralized at some point, they will need to find a revenue stream because giving access for free to the whole world, literally, is technically impossible.

You basically restated that its all about profit, and centralization. > giving access for free to the whole world, literally, is technically impossible. Again, this is what Mastodon is doing. This is also how email works. And its not technically impossible. Its impossible when you have investors who demand 30x growth at all costs. Its a capitalism issue, with game theory pushing worse and worse solutions to extract s…

But email is not centralized, and it grew when Internet was really different. Mastodon - which was born in this new Internet - is used by a very small fraction of Twitter/IG/TikTok/Facebook users. I mean, TikTok and Mastodon started both in 2016 and see the difference now...

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#318

Post by dgellow »

black_knight wrote: post #238
dgellow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think a 17 years old should be protected from political content? They are pretty much an adult and are able to vote in some places…

I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.

That’s a different claim then, you’re against political ads as a whole, not based on age. The fact that your teenager is 17 doesn’t feel relevant for your position

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#319

Post by bluecheese452 »

criddell wrote: post #288
xorcist wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point. There is no chance tobacco would be declared legal if it was invented today. Don't you agree?

How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that marijuana is being legalized all over the place?

1. Marijuana was not invented today. 2. Marijuana is not tobacco.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#320

Post by bluecheese452 »

m000 wrote: post #247
RandomLensman wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 legislat…

Yeah it allowed them to challenge traditional narratives like the earth is not flat and getting the measles vaccine is a good thing.
Post reply on HN