Live data from Hacker News

The kids with phones are alright

heatherburns.tech

391–400 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#391
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that data from kids who drank without adult supervision? It's hard to tell without more context if you're proving or disproving the point that's been made, which is that maybe learning how to drink responsibly with parents could lead to better outcomes than binging with buddies at parties when there are no adults around, which is a lot more common when adult are super strict about it (I'm saying this as someone wh…

IIRC its kids who drank without adult supervision or with adults who allowed them to drink excessively (e.g. people who had alcohol problems themselves). I definitely think it is a result of learning more responsible habits from adults, with supervision of what and how much they are allowed to drink. There is a huge difference between having a glass of wine (and maybe starting with diluted wine as mine did) with a fa…

I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think that keeping phones from kids will really make a huge impact. I have trouble imagining that the same parents who are (according to this framing) using phones as an excuse not to interact with their kids in as healthy ways wouldn't suddenly start interacting with them in healthy ways if the kids started needed more attention; they'd probably just interact with them in other unhealthy ways, which would not be possible to enumerate in order to try to legislate against.

On the other hand, I totally agree with your last point! I find it quite plausible that maybe parents having phones directly detracts from the quality of the parenting that a child receives; if we're saying these devices/apps are literally addictive, it stands to reason that a parent might get hooked to the detriment of their child, and with a modern perspective of addiction, it's not due to a character flaw as much as just a fundamental bug in our biology and psychology as humans. It would honestly make more sense to me to restrict the use of smartphones/social media for parents than children, but of course that has zero chance of happening (and there are are surely a myriad of downsides for this approach as well), so in general I'm just skeptical of this sort of thing being enforced from the top-down despite being pretty extreme in my left-wing views (and therefore not particularly adverse to government regulation in cases where I think it makes sense).

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#392
post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sweetheart, on this showing, you could insult me for twelve rounds and not land a single blow.

Then surely we shall go for thirteen at the least! I wasn't teying to be insulting though, I am just being playfully irreverent.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#393
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…

I would like to recommend a book where the author explains with scientific fundaments why lower age kids are more damaged from social media exposure.

https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-anxious-generation-how-the-...

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#394
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ban targeted ads. Great but then what? My oldest is 17, no targeted ads to him so that means he gets a million political ads. To me, it is just as problematic. I would argue that under 18, there should be zero ads. Yeah I know it will never happen.

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…

He isn't eligible to vote this coming election. So fuck yeah he shouldn't have to sit through that bullshit.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As I responded above, my 17 can't vote in the coming election and my 13 year old gets the same ads.

Sorry, under 18, should be 100% no to political ads. These companies know who is under 18.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A phone is practically a necessity of modern life. It isn't yet. > Sooner or later people have to use it, unlike alcohol. So far I've avoided having a smart phone, I've not had a mobile phone since flip phones - I went off always being contactable about that time, having had bleeding edge sat phones for decades. I have a land line, an answering machine, travel, purchase, am part of several overlapping businesses an…

> It isn't yet. Would you care to elaborate how you don't think a phone is not “practically necessary”? I have never personally met someone like you. I've never known someone who personally met someone like you either. Theoretically, nothing is a necessity. That's why I wrote “practically”. Practically nobody lives like you do.

> Would you care to elaborate how you don't think a phone is not “practically necessary”?

Can you rephrase sans the cascading negatives. To restate, I have a full life in a G20 country, I don't own or use a smart phone.

> I have never personally met someone like you.

There are many people on the planet.

> Practically nobody lives like you do.

There are many people like me .. you don't met them via your smart phone.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sugar is addictive. TV is addictive. Reading is addictive. Stuff is addictive. Take some responsibility over your own impulses, desires, and life balance. "Govern me harder daddy" isn't something I subscribe to as a method of dampening the addictive forces surrounding us.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "show you more to provoke you"

How dare they show people stuff!

Reminds me of the perpetrators of crimes against women who blame what women wear. "She provoked me by showing her ankles! I didn't like it but the next day she was showing me her ankles again!"

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#400
post #221
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think. What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes. At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violatio…

Currently, the fact that these large platforms can block you and they block you randomly (which is the case of Reddit for me, because I dared to use privacy protecting extensions when I commented on a subreddit to which I wasn’t subscribed; Instagram permanently blocked me because I used VPN when I wanted to login) is way larger restriction on my speech than removing these harmful platforms completely. Currently, I’m…

Reddit is a platform that LARP's about "freeze peach", but you get an automated site-wide ban for nothing. And it will link you to the post, it has now deleted to try and show you what was banned.

I posted "So you're blaming jews then?" to a clearly anti-semitic comment and poof. Gone

Are you confusing subreddit chosen restrictions (like minimum karma) and banning?

Post reply on HN