Live data from Hacker News

The kids with phones are alright

heatherburns.tech

351–360 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#351
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"These are groups that i invented". I know a few upper-crust families, including a hereditary title. They all care about their children, like the majority of human beings. But this blogger doesn't think we hate posh people enough, so necessarily they abuse their young. It snacks of "jews will eat your baby". It's not the vitriol that offends me, it's the stupidity.

I've known plenty of very rich people and they're just normal people, every bit as capable of loving or abusing their children as anyone. So while I kinda agree with the first half, your comment smacks of knowing less extremely wealthy people and still being at the stage where you're just so happy you bumped into a few and feel the need to glaze them, lacking the outlook and the jadedness available to someone like me…

Triangulate this:

I grew up in a listed house with twelve fireplaces and a stable block with coach houses (plural). There were three crown princes in my boarding house at school. My godfather's house is a tourist attraction and my godmother was on the board of ICI. My mother's garden is on the horticultural circuit. My sister got married in Westminster Abbey. One brother used to play polo and the other just made equity partner at deloitte. I can probably get twenty OBEs on the phone. One of my friends has a net worth of €500b, and this year i have declined three invitations from him just to avoid the air travel.

When i was young and everything was black-and-white, i hated all rich people. I chiselled my privilege out of my accent and worked manual jobs. Now i hate the system, and i take the people in the system as i find them. My circle includes people from all walks of life, and I get invited to opera and to warehouse parties alike.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course these settings do nothing if he just opens any browser and watches YouTube logged off.

New Commodore flip phone - has google maps and whatsapp for calls and video, otherwise a dumb phone. Hard to argue below 18 actually needs more. Wants, sure, but then whole cancerous can of worms is opened and good luck there.

He has a Lightphone which he hates. That's how I know it is working. He built a gaming PC last year, so I am aware that Pandora's box is open there. But look, it has been thirteen years of playing whackamole with YouTube. I can't keep him off it. They watch it at school. They give him chromebooks that I have no control over. And the stuff I do have control over the control is tenuous. I have largely given up. He is pretty much grown now. But man, has it felt like gaslighting when people are like, "Do parenting. Use the settings. Get a dumb phone. Problem solved."

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#354
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really bad example. From the Wikipedia article: “ No evidence established direct connections between Georgescu's campaign and Russian state actors. There were only assertions that there must have been due to his rapid rise on social media” And: the "National Liberal Party paid for a campaign on TikTok that ended up favoring ... Georgescu" and not Russia as previously presented to the Constitutional Court. Also: On 28…

Not a good counterexample either. The link to Russian intelligence services may not be proven, but nobody seems to dispute that there were paid influencers? Also that this was not declared anywhere and the money was at best grey in origin? In events like these it can be useful to operate on the systems thinking maxim and strictly look at who benefited, as this is interesting in itself without entertaining the suggest…

> The link to Russian intelligence services may not be proven, but nobody seems to dispute that there were paid influencers?

As the quotes I included say, there was no evidence that Russia was behind the interference. They did track who paid for Tiktok "influencers" but it was ended up at "the National Liberal Party" - which means it was not foreign interference as pretty much all media in the world reported. If you wan to claim there was without anyone disputing it, you absolutely should provide evidence!

I think the only irregularity was that the Tiktok paid influencers were not disclosed properly. But the same has happened in so many other countries (even in Sweden where I am - the biggest party had to go through a huge scandal about doing just that) without ending up nullifying the result of elections. Of course, if they did not like the results enough, I'm sure similar shenanigans would've been utilized.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#355

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…

Stop calling it social media.

Call it something like the matrix.

Isolating specialized customized algorithms tube to be addicted to specifically you and tuned to keep you away from other humans forever.

Instead of identity barriers like in the UK they should simply ban "accounts".

Regulators should say: ok you can serve kids and women and whoever else but you have to creat 20 channels and you can't differentiate and everyone just picks a username that isn't protected and they shout into the group chat and nobody knows who anyone is except the provider and everyone sees the same thing.

Ok this is an exaggeration to make the point.

We can't even see what other people are being shown.

You can't even opt out of being secretly show things.

It's evil.

I want a feed that is 100% public. Every single thing they show me is shown to everyone. Like radio or something.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#356
post #348
post #307

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? 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."

Maybe this will help, but I know that your cognitive dissonance will find something else:

- There are 100 controversial opinions - 50 is censored - you can see 50 all the time

Also, you ignored all of the explanation which explained to you why your “censorship” and mine are different. And make your whole question nonsense. Because you predictably used “leftist”, and I anticipated that the problem is empathy.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#357
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things are harmful for everyone, yet we only ban them for children because banning them for everyone would create huge uproar. Make tobacco illegal and then we can talk about social media.

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

Not really. The US has widely legalized gambling of various forms (sports, prediction markets, etc) in recent years. I'd argue that even more so than nicotine there is zero benefit to gambling.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#358
post #187

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…

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…

[dead]

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Based on what? Your personal feelings? You think kids don’t get anything from online content and interactions with other kids via their phone?

I get nothing but depression from online interactions with other people and nothing but joy with my in-person interactions. I'd rather my kids start drinking and hang out at a bar or develop a smoking habit and hang at a hookah cafe than make 'friends' online to be perfectly honest -- at least that's normal in the grand scheme of things. They wouldn't be the first teenagers to do that and it's healthier for your social life.

> online content

There is nothing that they get from online content on a phone that they would not get better on an actual computer. My children already have computers (raspberry pis) at home and don't need a phone to access content. Plus, unlike a phone, they are able to use a computer to create content which is a much better perspective with technology than the mindless consumption that is now commonplace.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#360
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then first we need to fix the issues in the parents, especially those with only one kid, reading social media and low rent news sites, who believe their kid is constantly in immortal danger, thereby forcing the phone upon the kid, in an attempt to ease their insecurities This aspect needs talking about way more especially when the parents don't admit to it and to being the instigator The question isn't just "what do…

What mortal danger would necessitate a smart phone versus a dumb phone? I don't understand
Post reply on HN