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

321–330 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#321

Post by theamk »

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.

Don't your kids go anywhere by themselves? Or do they stay at home / only get ferried by the parents?

A bus-tracking app on my phone completely changed how I interact with public transit, and made it significantly better. I remember waiting for the bus when I was 14, and I would not wish this to anyone.

A maps app is great when you are going to less-familiar places - either into the big city, or into large parks (although not every kid is ready to be hiking in the parks before 16)

I spent all of my childhood with a (large and ugly) digital camera on my belt. Phone is much smaller, and for the kind of pictures I was taking, the lower quality does not matter that much.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#322

Post by roundabout-host »

exodust wrote: post #260
roundabout-host wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> very addictive The "addictive" insisting by 2 new ones in short time? Getting bot vibes. "We need to classify social media as an addictive substance" more or less. Is that from someone's e-safety commissioner? Or someone wanting back-pay compo right back to MySpace addiction. An absurd idea. "Some people can't control themselves around video games therefore video games bad", that's what social media has copped. "Ad…

No, I don't think that it's about buttons and scrolling. It is simply about what the algorithm promotes. If you look at one thing, even if you decide that you don't like it, they show you more to provoke you. The algorithm should be limited to showing followed pages.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#323

Post by theamk »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #312
yogorenapan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that to get a bug bounty one needs to study things first, and this takes quite a bit of time.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#324

Post by marcosdumay »

philipallstar wrote: post #240
gherkinnn wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Regulating access to speech platforms is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind, from regulating speech.

Requiring universal access is a form of regulation, and the OP asking for regulating the platform, not the access.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#325

Post by abc42 »

This is a great example of a thing that's 99% harmful being 1% very useful.

So which should we choose as society, removing the 99% harm or keep the 1% usefulness?

Also we should note that the children in this example were 16 and 17 years old, so above the age of many of the suggested restrictions.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#326

Post by abc42 »

mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

I'm for very restrictive digital device and service use for children and I also think that 16 is roughly the age when most or all of those restrictions can be lifted.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#327

Post by bigfishrunning »

adrian17 wrote: post #255
fragmede wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

AFAIK a nontrivial (5-10%?) fraction of population own a smartphone without any bigger computing device.

I would doubt many of them are using those smartphones to collect bug bounties.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#328

Post by rpdillon »

specproc wrote: post #168
NoPicklez wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conten…

Section 230 is very important for all website operators. It doesn't just protect big companies. If you repeal it, now you're making every blog owner responsible for whatever some idiot says in the comments section.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#329

Post by GuB-42 »

jhbadger wrote: post #195
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…

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?

When I had to fill up the ESTA form to enter the US, this is what was in the "social media" drop down list:

- ASKfm

- Facebook

- Flickr

- GitHub

- Google+

- Instagram

- JustPaste.it

- LinkedIn

- Tumblr

- Twitter

- Vine

- VKontakte (VK)

- YouTube

This is obviously outdated but it can give an idea.

Post reply on HN