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

111–120 of 163 posts

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

#111

Post by iamnothere »

baggachipz wrote: post #104
saghm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that any teenagers who go from having access today to not having it tomorrow are probably not going to magically become different in the ways you desire; it seems a lot more likely to have effects on kids who are younger and haven't already been influenced by it, but at that point we're actually talking about trying to make a structural changes to make things different in the long term. That type of thing s…

Think of it like current kids being bombarded by cancer-causing radiation. The sooner you get them out of it the better. Yes, it is better still to never have been exposed, but the second best time to stop it is now.

This kind of absurd hyperbole is the clearest sign of a moral panic.

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

#112

Post by iamnothere »

zug_zug wrote: post #70
dgellow wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, once a state passes a law we'll have plenty of data to actually conduct a meaningful measurement on the topic. We'll see how things change for these teens once the law goes into effect - do they report being happier? do they get better grades? etc.

Exactly, and let’s take away your internet access next and see if it improves the state of politics in this country. We’ll find out after the fact, but until then I’m sure you won’t mind.

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

#113

Post by iamnothere »

bluGill wrote: post #72
nhinck3 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban smart phones for kids.

My kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.

Why can we make laws to require intrusive age attestation/verification everywhere but we can’t make laws to end the use of school iPads? One of these seems easier to do?

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

#114

Post by bluGill »

kyboren wrote: post #107
bluGill wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.

Then refuse on First Amendment grounds. Your child has a right to an education and if you truly, sincerely believe those devices must not be used, the school must offer an accommodation.

I'm not against devices. I'm against some of the things that can be done with them.

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

#115

Post by saghm »

baggachipz wrote: post #104
saghm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that any teenagers who go from having access today to not having it tomorrow are probably not going to magically become different in the ways you desire; it seems a lot more likely to have effects on kids who are younger and haven't already been influenced by it, but at that point we're actually talking about trying to make a structural changes to make things different in the long term. That type of thing s…

Think of it like current kids being bombarded by cancer-causing radiation. The sooner you get them out of it the better. Yes, it is better still to never have been exposed, but the second best time to stop it is now.

If you think the big social media companies are literally bombarding kids with radiation, I'm confused why you still don't seem to consider it at least as urgent to shut down the radiation-generating companies.

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

#116

Post by saghm »

iamnothere wrote: post #111
baggachipz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it like current kids being bombarded by cancer-causing radiation. The sooner you get them out of it the better. Yes, it is better still to never have been exposed, but the second best time to stop it is now.

This kind of absurd hyperbole is the clearest sign of a moral panic.

That's basically the point I was trying to make with my initial response; I think any claim that something is so urgent that we need to act now even with a solution that everyone admits isn't great should be scrutinized pretty thoroughly, because historically calls like this are at least as likely to be a way of manufacturing consent as they are to actually be some emergency, especially when the emergency apparently is not clear enough without needing a lot of explanation.

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

#117

Post by frumper »

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…

If your 14yo spends 90% of their waking life on any device it should be pretty obvious for a parent. If you let your kid spend that much time on a phone, then any government ban in place isn't going to do what you think it will.

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

#118

Post by frumper »

iamnothere wrote: post #112
zug_zug wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, once a state passes a law we'll have plenty of data to actually conduct a meaningful measurement on the topic. We'll see how things change for these teens once the law goes into effect - do they report being happier? do they get better grades? etc.

Exactly, and let’s take away your internet access next and see if it improves the state of politics in this country. We’ll find out after the fact, but until then I’m sure you won’t mind.

Sugar and alcohol are very clearly negatives for a lot of people, I vote them next.

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

#119

Post by eszed »

bluGill wrote: post #68
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 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…

Yep. All I want is allow/deny permissions on particular channels. For my little guy I'd set up a blanket Deny rule, with a few channels allowed; for older kids parents might want to go the other way.

All of the "parent better" messages are useless (not to mention out of touch) when technical tools to do so are not made avaliable to us. And, of course, those tools are not given because YouTube wants to drop kids into the endless algorithmic feed of slop. The age verification laws are stupid, and will nowhere address the actual problem. YouTube (and the like) - not parents - will still have full control.

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

#120

Post by dgellow »

bigfudge wrote: post #87
dgellow wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plenty of researchers study and publish on the topic of social media. You’re conflating internal processes/experiments where Meta was very likely damaging people with public research.
Post reply on HN