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

341–350 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#341

Post by ceejayoz »

philipallstar wrote: post #340
ceejayoz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share? > The former childminder from Northampton, who is married to a Conservative councillor, had posted an abhorrent message on X, calling for people to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers following the murder of three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024. > Yet the fact both men were able to address a huge crowd in London is perhaps evidence t…

> Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share? Sorry, I'm confused by the question.

The link seems to make the opposite point you intended.

Criminal threats with appropriate punishment, and regular old hateful speech is ongoing.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#342

Post by buttercraft »

recursive-call wrote: post #259
inigyou wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

The poster up thread said people were being arrested for "mean tweets" and now you've moved it to "but those death threats weren't serious!" No, the original claim was dishonest bullshit.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#343

Post by philipallstar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #341
philipallstar wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share? Sorry, I'm confused by the question.

The link seems to make the opposite point you intended. Criminal threats with appropriate punishment, and regular old hateful speech is ongoing.

The link is far broader than that, but even in this case: there was no threat. No more than a university lecturer tweeting that he wanted a white genocide.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#344

Post by ceejayoz »

philipallstar wrote: post #343
ceejayoz wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link seems to make the opposite point you intended. Criminal threats with appropriate punishment, and regular old hateful speech is ongoing.

The link is far broader than that, but even in this case: there was no threat. No more than a university lecturer tweeting that he wanted a white genocide.

I'm sorry, but if you think public calls to burn down occupied buildings during unrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots) aren't a threat, I'm not sure there's a discussion to be had here.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#345

Post by toasty228 »

Kiro wrote: post #190
StingyJelly wrote: post #47

Kids with phones are alright. Attention economy of social media is not. As did tabaco companies, they (soc. media tech giants) push proposals to regulate phone use based on age in hopes that the their information asymmetry advantage and addictive dark patterns that are the problem in the first place won't be regulated and they can keep exploiting the public held in their trap by network effect.

Attention economy is a red herring. HN shows that you don't need to do much to be more addictive than TikTok. It's human nature.

The scale is completely different. It's like arguing a bomb, a gun and a knife are exactly the same thing and we shouldn't bother thinking about where we draw the legality line

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#346

Post by toasty228 »

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.

> but 16 is nearly adult

On paper yes, biologically not really

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#347

Post by bko »

inigyou wrote: post #334
bko wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How has it gotten worse? You have a lot more freedom on all social media platforms than you did 4 years ago. What's gotten worse in some countries is the government censorship which I'm against.

??? no you don't, if you disagree with Musk on Twitter your account gets visibility-limited and if you want to use Reddit it's hard to even get an account that's allowed to post anywhere and not shadowbanned

I get a ton of ppl on my feed that I do not follow that say awful things about Musk daily. What are you talking about?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#348

Post by bko »

ruszki wrote: post #307
bko wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's censored and there is a ton of controversial opinions being spread? Do you see how these two statements are in conflict? What is being censored? You don't like some speech but that's proof that restrictions on speech have been lifted. Get your narrative consistent at least. There's either vile speech due to lifting speech restrictions or there are still restrictions so these opinions are suppressed. The charlie…

> It's censored and there is a ton of controversial opinions being spread? > Do you see how these two statements are in conflict? It's not in conflict. Both can be true at the same time. Also, there is nothing which is not "controversial". > You don't like some speech but that's proof that restrictions on speech have been lifted. Still, nothing in conflict. I can have problem with some speech, and I can support full…

I see crazy stuff relating to conspiracy theories about Kirk every day. It's not censored.

If you don't see the contradiction around censorship while seeing a ton of controversial opinions, I don't know how to convince you. It reminds of the quote "It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#349

Post by bigstrat2003 »

rwmj wrote: post #289
bko wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an example of Westmidlands police bragging about arresting a 12 year old for racist posts. There are 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages. It's not heavily reported for some reason but it's very real. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... https://x.com/WMPolice/status/1282627004018364416

If you walk through a town shouting racist stuff you'll get arrested too, and rightly so.

The kid is 12 years old. If he ran around shouting racist stuff in town, that should be addressed by his parents, not by an arrest.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#350

Post by tonyedgecombe »

graemep wrote: post #295
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the evidence points the other way. Giving younger people a drink with their meal during adolescence leads to more drinking problems later in life.

As far as I know the evidence points to getting drunk younger leads to more drinking problems later in life. Drinking moderately younger leads to fewer.

I don't think so although I can't find the report I read right now.
Post reply on HN