Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#81

Post by marky1991 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #64
alex43578 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you allowed to dictate how others raise their children? They don’t get a say in your kids diet or religion or choice of sport.

There are limits to laws and limiting social media companies' ability to have child users is well within those. If you don't like it, contact your representative instead of spinning your wheels on HN.

I don't understand, could you rephrase your answer to his question? I read his question and read your response, but don't see a connection between the two.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#82

Post by bigfudge »

alex43578 wrote: post #53
kelseyfrog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.

Why are you allowed to dictate how others raise their children? They don’t get a say in your kids diet or religion or choice of sport.

They do have plenty of influence over the environment your child lives in. Vaccination for public school entry would be a good example.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#83

Post by bigfudge »

logicchains wrote: post #59
kelseyfrog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.

>Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. If you don't teach them to resist peer pressure when they're younger then they won't know how to when they turn 16 or 18 either, and they'll end up as losers with an external locus of control who blame other people and apps for their own failures…

Peer pressure is one thing. The entire commercial might of the US tech and cultural industry is harder to resist. It’s not fair to put responsibility on children to have willpower in their use of SM when thousands of PHds are actively researching how to make the services more addictive and increase their network effects.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#84

Post by ndriscoll »

bigfudge wrote: post #79
dgellow wrote: post #38

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 point that HN libertarians miss is that the whole point of social networks is that they benefit from network effects. This is what makes them profitable. But it’s also what makes it necessary to subject them to democratic accountability and makes them a legitimate target of public policy. If my teenagers entire peer groups spends 90% of their waking life on addictive social networks and a ‘normal’ social life is…

One obvious solution is of course to break these companies up. Set a maximum user count that a communication network operator is allowed to have before we break them up (say, 10M). Require some kind of good-faith open federation for any communication provider over a certain size (e.g. if a user adds a user from another provider as a friend/contact/follow, you must allow that and cannot claim you are "blocking spam" or something to act as a gatekeeper).

Then your friends could use the evil instance, you could talk to them on it through your good one as a federating relay (e.g. yours might operate on a friend whitelist), but the parent could otherwise block access to the wider content pool and ad-filled addictive UI of the evil instances.

This would actually work well for ISPs and phone companies too while we're at it. And email providers. Actually a statutory maximum size (customers, revenue, etc.) could make sense for companies in general, probably. Revenue above 0.1% of GDP? Breakup.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#85

Post by bigfudge »

saghm wrote: post #62
baggachipz wrote: post #15

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.

I don't agree with your framing at all that we need to do something and it because to be done immediately, so it seems basically impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion if things seem so dire to you that this seems self-evident rather than needing some further justification. In general I feel like any assertions about the need for something immediately like this should have a fairly high bar for justifyi…

Do you have teenage kids? It feels highly urgent to me because the generation of kids aged 12-21 are severely impacted by the harms and cultural distortion these services cause. I think it would be hard to imagine their hold on this generation and the impact without first hand observation.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#86

Post by drdrd »

“nearly every major service relies on automated feeds, the ultimate result is that young people under 16 will still be locked out of major digital services as they currently exist.”

What an absurd stance. Carry water for big tech’s negligent, anti-consumer behavior in the name of… freedom? Sad times for the EFF.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#87

Post by bigfudge »

dgellow wrote: post #41
baggachipz wrote: post #15

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.

Studies I read on the topic don’t demonstrate harm, what are you relying upon? Hopefully not Haidt’s book

All meaningful research on SM is highly gatekept by the industry. There is plenty of evidence from whistleblowers that internal assessments were that the services were causing harm.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#88

Post by bigfudge »

bloppe wrote: post #47
SecretDreams wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed entirely. They're really glossing over the harm parts. The vibe in this article feels like someone who used the internet in the 90s and 2000s when community was actually a thing. Maybe even early Facebook days when it was college level and newly released to the general public. What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar compa…

Are cigarettes banned?

Yes for kids. And highly regulated for everyone else (especially in Europe but also in the US)

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#89

Post by mbonnet »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #50
dgellow wrote: post #38

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 controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.

Why do you think you need to take action on how other people raise their children?

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#90

Post by AdrianB1 »

johnmlussier wrote: post #43

No smart phones for kids under 16. Problem solved.

Almost. I would still want a location sharing app on my kids phones, a navigation app, maybe a sport tracking app. That would be a locked down smartphone with a few apps I would install and no browser access.
Post reply on HN