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

401–410 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#401

Post by marysol5 »

ruszki wrote: post #264
bko wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there was basically a cartel in social media. You saw coordinated censorship campaigns to ban the former president of the United States for example. But I wouldn't discount the amount of political interference there as well. The last administration admitted to flagging individual posts for the social media companies. But it's true there is a lot of coordinated censorship even without state interference. But this…

> this tends to resolve itself as there is a market opportunity to create a better product If the market is fair and leveled. Which is not the case without intervention as we know for hundreds of years at this point. And governments clearly started to no intervene even when their own laws would require it. > which lifted its restrictions This is categorically not true. Twitter home page is massively censored and coor…

Twitter was an easy one to get a ban from, just by saying "this is racist" or "racism is bad" and you're gone.

Went through quite literally hundreds of accounts through it.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#402

Post by marysol5 »

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 right love to play-down the woman who called for terrorist attacks on British streets as "just a tweet".

Meanwhile there's been two arrests around two prominent right-wing politicians getting threats and celebration of death this week. And they're all silent again.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#403

Post by marysol5 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #344
philipallstar wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"ISIS never threatened anybody, they just called for bombs to be set off"

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#404

Post by marysol5 »

philipallstar wrote: post #242
kolektiv wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common (and somewhat right-wing) trope, but it's not really true. Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar. That isn't to say the UK has no problem with the balance of freedom of expression and regulation, but it is nothing like the impression you'd get from some sources. There are some high-profile cases which are commonly misrepresented to support these claims.

It is definitely true. It's "right wing" because the soft power is with the left (or was until maybe very recently) and so only principled people of the left (e.g. Bill Maher) and all the people of the right (either principled on speech or saying things that are more likely to be censored) are going to be talking about it.

What on earth are you on about, we've had 20+ years of right-wing governments.

>and all the people of the right

Tell that to the Tory MP who had me arrested for upsetting them, or the UKIP goon's forcibly removed me from their "Free Speech Conference"

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#405

Post by marysol5 »

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…

They were credible threats though, as the people were doing EXACTLY what she called for

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#406

Post by marysol5 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #280
recursive-call wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A free society doesn’t arrest someone for saying “I’m going to burn down so-and-so’s house.” I feel like it's a significantly freer society when others can't threaten to murder me without consequences.

It's always weird that these "freeze peach absolutism" never seem to notice that death, is the ultimate censorship

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#407

Post by marysol5 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #282
bko wrote: 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…

We imprisoned kids for making an offensive video of a burning cardboard xopy of grenfell tower But we gave legal immunity to the corporate executives that forged fire testing certificates and caused the actual fire that killed over 100 people And when I say we have Russia-style corruption no one believes me

>We imprisoned kids for making an offensive video of a burning cardboard xopy of grenfell tower

40 years are not kids bro. and wasn't jailed

>The 49-year-old was given a 10-week suspended jail sentence.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#408

Post by marysol5 »

netniuq wrote: post #175
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…

We regulate the platforms, not the users: We ban (most? all?) targeted advertising. If we still have to go further, we force tech giants to publish their recommendation algorithms and aggregated user data (e.g. statistics about time spent on what types of content on the platform by user cohort) If we still have to go further, we can adapt policy restricting concrete addictive usage-patterns (e.g. the infinite scroll…

How do you "ban targetted ads", every advert is targetted. TV advertising is targetted.

There's a reason you get kids toys during the after-school section, and wills and funeral planning during the day

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#409

Post by marysol5 »

sdevonoes wrote: post #252
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…

The problem to solve is addiction. When I was a kid I could spend the whole day and week in front of the play station… but my parents thought me that, well, that’s not normal (and ofc sent me to sleep every other night). Why social media or phones is different? Parents need to teach these kind of stuff to their kids. It’s the same for drugs, sex, money or any other thing

And as a kid I'd risk being shouted at, and/or grounded to get onto the playstation at night, and the same with my computer.

Shoving a pillow over the dial-up modem because I didn't know you could turn off the dial sound....

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#410

Post by marysol5 »

zug_zug wrote: post #314
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…

My proposal for step 1 -- Allow people to "ban themselves" from certain social media for certain period. Every platform/app MUST support the ability to set limits on usage for all time periods (hour/day/week/month) and enforce those. Also allow the user to set blacklist times. Also allow the user to set a "cooldown" period on any blacklist changes. This is the low-hanging-fruit, for those of us who KNOW it's an addic…

A BIG BIG problem, and part of the reason that we're so stuck where we are now. Is that parents just don't bother to actually employ, or enforce these systems anyway.
Post reply on HN