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

361–370 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#361

Post by jhbadger »

GuB-42 wrote: post #329
jhbadger wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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- Google+ - Instagram - JustPaste.it - LinkedIn - Tumblr - Twitter - Vine - VKontakte (VK) - YouTube This is obviously outdated but it can give an idea.

That's interesting - Github as social media? That's an idea of would never have thought of in a million years. Personally, I'd be glad if a child of mine hung out there - not at all like something like Instagram or Facebook.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#362

Post by mrguyorama »

specproc wrote: post #338
rpdillon wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, scale is important: I think it's entirely reasonable to have different rules for platforms with millions of users.

The real problem Section 230 was built to solve was the prevent email companies and places like Flickr being burned down by the feds for all the child porn in inevitably ends up holding.

Section 230 is not what allows Facebook to push lies.

Eliminating section 230 will fix the problem though, by banning all user generated content from the internet forever. No more SaaS in general.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#364

Post by mrguyorama »

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…

This is delusional. Normal people have been calling social media addictive since before facebook existed.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#365

Post by gib444 »

anon291 wrote: post #360
gib444 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's the live GPS tracking they want. Kidnapping?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#366

Post by GuB-42 »

jhbadger wrote: post #361
GuB-42 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's interesting - Github as social media? That's an idea of would never have thought of in a million years. Personally, I'd be glad if a child of mine hung out there - not at all like something like Instagram or Facebook.

I was also surprised, but it makes sense.

It is based on user-generated content, it has a comment system, followers and stars (similar to "likes"). There is even an attention economy, and some gamification.

Social media doesn't have to be bad, it just needs to be social.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#367

Post by customguy »

psd1 wrote: post #351
customguy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 equi…

Aha! So you "hated the rich", now you turn around call people who say something negative about them as a class antisemites, basically using Jews to defend the rich against your own straw man / phantoms of the past.

Anyways, your quite pedestrian life story changes none of the data, e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

Being aware of said data is not "hatred" or seeing things black and white.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#368

Post by quickthrowman »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #115
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.

Limited, locked-down smart watches is what most kids need.

That is the solution my sister and brother-in-law chose for my 10 yo nephew. He can call home and a few family members and do whatever other limited things an Apple Watch can do. I wear a regular mechanical watch and have never used an Apple Watch so I’m not exactly sure what else it can do, lol.

F2P games with dopamine drip loot boxes and things of that nature seem super unhealthy for kids, I can’t even imagine what it’s doing to their impulse control. I am unable to tolerate games like that myself, probably because I grew up with regular video games that didn’t use psychological tricks and pay to win ecosystems to induce people to spend money. If I had grown up playing them I probably wouldn’t know any different, like the fish asking “what the hell is water” when asked “how is the water this morning?” By an older fish.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#369

Post by NoPicklez »

worble wrote: post #187
gherkinnn wrote: post #156

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…

People don't actually think that's the case. However it is obviously an age in which we believe kids can start to have more agency over their own lives and make bigger decisions because they have matured (hopefully) enough to do so.

We therefore then tack other restrictions to those age brackets.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#370

Post by quickthrowman »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #157
InvisibleUp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all of YouTube. There’s some good stuff on there, just not in the “Shorts” tab.

> There’s some good stuff on there, just not in the “Shorts” tab. Why do people get so weird about the shorts tab? There are perfectly good videos in there, they're just tilted weird. You can fit quality content into 3 minutes. And remember Elsagate? That was entirely landscape videos.

You can post short regular YouTube videos, I have dozens of favorites that are under 30 seconds long, some are only a few seconds long. The YouTube algorithm didn’t always punish short videos.

The method of ingestion for short form video content is what I dislike, it encourages endless consumption. Each video is immediately followed by another video. It’s very hard to critically consume that style of content when you don’t have time to think about what you’re watching or just watched once another video starts playing. I believe this leads to uncritically believing whatever you’re watching.

The format itself incentivizes sensationalism and puffery, I feel like I’m ingesting questionable information every time I’ve watched short form videos. That’s the main reason I reject short form video content outright, it just feels .. ‘wrong’ somehow.

Post reply on HN