71–80 of 163 posts
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.
Ban smart phones for kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? It might be worth re-reading this particular sentence again, out loud, and really consider what you're asking for here. And why stop at internet access once you're starting to think like this?
The above poster isn't saying Internet access; they're saying access to the ad-filled Skinner boxes that are trying to position themselves as necessary for communication through network effects. Incidentally, the bill doesn't even say they can't use them; it just says the platform has to tone down the Skinner box part for children. > This subdivision does not prohibit a covered platform from permitting a user who is…
No smart phones for kids under 16. Problem solved.
it seems like this whole discussion, both the proposed law and EFFs full throated support for social media giants is getting lost in the weeds. we used to have a small number of media outlets for structural reasons. and we were concerned enough about their ability to filter what everyone saw that we tried to pass some laws that's weren't very useful or effective now that the structural barriers are gone, do we see a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ban targeted advertising
I don't think that would solve the issue. The algorithms exist to keep users engaged and looking at ads; turning the ads from targeted to generic still wouldn't change the end goal of these companies. They want to keep people scrolling and feeling inadequate so that they see and click ads.
It’s certainly more nuanced, but it’s like if children could smoke cigarettes being against laws to raise the smoking age. The arguments boil down to right of these kids to engage in practices they don’t understand the ramifications of, or putting it on the parents. I get there’s a libertarian argument that the government shouldn’t be limiting their citizens freedoms period, but this is California ffs, it’s probably the last state in the list for libertarian morals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls
The problem is strict controls is not helpful. My kids teachers often assign homework which is watch some YouTube video - which means I have to give my kids access to all of YouTube including channels i don't approve of. In turn i have to stare at my kids screen - a very creepy move - instead of working on whatever my own project is when they are doing homework. I constantly find something as a parent where I can blo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is not politically viable for the parents who want controls to limit their children's access. It's funny watching HN constantly berate parents for not parenting while parents' material conditions don't change. Same environment, same result, and frankly there's more of them and they're better organized. All it takes is parents to win once. You have to not lose every time.
What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls
If my teenagers entire peer groups spends 90% of their waking life on addictive social networks and a ‘normal’ social life is impossible without it then the parent is faced with a Hobsons choice. It’s easy enough to band my 10 year old from social networks. It’s much more complex doing that to 14 year olds and potentially does have negative effects for them unless their friends are similarly limited. This is why we need regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like telling people to drive better to prevent crashes. It's considerably more effective to invent/mandate seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones and hopefully in the future some kind of automated magical computer system that takes driving completely out of the hands of meatbags.
You’re using an analogy that removes the nuance from the topic in question
(I mean, you can train every human to read, but you can't train them to practice 100% concentration/awareness every second they're behind the wheel of a car)