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

121–130 of 163 posts

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

#121

Post by dgellow »

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…

Thanks, that’s the type of details I was looking for, as I’m not a parent myself. That does sound like a bad situation, indeed. Though it’s also a bit strange that watching a YouTube video is a homework. I would have assumed that schools have their own platform

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

#122

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #102
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's logically wrong about, "think of the children?" So we shouldn't think of the children?

if you only "think of the children" you will forget about the rest of the population. Children will be adults most of their life, it is better to prepare them for adulthood than putting everyone in an ever shrinking and taller pen

Children turn into adults that ask for social media to be regulated.

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

#123

Post by dgellow »

eszed wrote: post #119
bluGill wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s useless as a blanket statement, but not if you go in specifics. With enough public pressure targeted specifically at YouTube it’s completely possible they would add more controls, and is more reasonable than a complete ban of social platforms

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

#124

Post by iamnothere »

red_admiral wrote: post #26

I'm afraid this reads like "we've not 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, so ..." Is the science 100% settled? No. Is this the best possible way to regulate this? No. But it's sure better than the current state of things. "laws such as A.B. 1709, as passed by the legislature, function as a ban on social media use for people under the age of 16" That's not my reading of the bill, specifically 22683. (a) (2) on htt…

Your right to make a website with annoying and addictive features is part of your freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment. Can’t ban it, and if the courts were to allow such a ban then it would be a very worrying precedent.

Just ban targeted advertising, under the grounds of regulation of interstate commerce.

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

#125

Post by dgellow »

spwa4 wrote: post #42
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

That would do nothing to help with the pressure kids will feel if others are on social media.

You cannot regulate peer pressure, even with the complete ban you would still have kids using other platforms for social interaction and have peer pressure, like on roblox or whatever

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

#126

Post by dgellow »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #109
mbonnet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do you think you can limit what relationship I have with my legislative representative? If you don't like it, out spend me in political donations.

What a non answer…

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

#127

Post by iamnothere »

baggachipz wrote: post #32
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #30

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 would put them out of business, or fundamentally change the business model to one where engagement is not the primary metric for users.

These platforms are so profitable because of targeted advertising. And most of the harm of these platforms comes from privacy invasion (tied to advertising) and the need to juice engagement numbers by manipulating emotions (also tied to advertising). A subscription model would not have the same problems.

There are serious first amendment concerns with attempting to regulate the presentation of websites and apps.

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

#128

Post by dgellow »

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…

Im very, very far from being a libertarian…

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

#129

Post by [deleted] »

dgellow wrote: post #125
spwa4 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would do nothing to help with the pressure kids will feel if others are on social media.

You cannot regulate peer pressure, even with the complete ban you would still have kids using other platforms for social interaction and have peer pressure, like on roblox or whatever

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by kyboren »

bluGill wrote: post #114
kyboren wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's really difficult to sympathize with your perspective here.

>>> Ban smartphones for kids.

>>> But the school gives my kids homework on them.

>> Then tell the school you and your kid won't use them; they still have to educate your kid.

> But I want my kid to use them. I just don't like what they allow my kid to do.

If they allow your kids to do things you don't want your kids doing, then don't let your kids use them! That's parenting 101.

It's very frustrating how many parents want to Nerf the world and destroy freedom and privacy, all so they can offload some of the essential duties of parenting to the state. Usually this is combined with a heaping helping of learned helplessness and lemming-like groupthink.

"But everyone is using smartphones; I couldn't deprive little Timmy! And it's modestly inconvenient to be a stick in the mud! Lawmakers, help! I demand that everyone has to do a face scan to authenticate every TCP packet--just think of my children!"

Post reply on HN