The case for banning children from social media • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#121

Post by rysertio » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #80

d110af5ccf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people on HN have a strong reaction against any attempt to regulate the internet, from generations of moral panics about new things. No. That is absolutely not why and betrays precisely the lack of understanding about these things that causes such a response to begin with. Any time you find yourself dismissing widely held concerns you should take a step back and reevaluate if you haven't missed something. P…

I didn't dismiss concerns about freedom of speech. I explicitly acknowledged them in paragraph 4. My point is that there is a tradeoff here, and reasonable people can disagree. That's reasonable a reasonable complaint about how I talked about moral panics. Updated the wording to not say that's the reason for HN's strong reaction. Though I really do think that cultural history is a major factor. > Also I think I'd obj…

There's one single problem. The addictive thing here is a dual use good. Most kids also use social media for keeping up with their classes and stuff. At this point you can miss an exam if you don't check your social media regularly. I don't know how do you go back from this point where social media is an integral part of our lives.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#122

Post by marcus_holmes » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

tastysandwich wrote: post #46

I just don't see any alternatives to banning social media, perhaps even up to the age of 18. The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff - especially in our highly polarised political climate. The right will immediately target "wokeness", and the left will immediately target "hate speech". And the kids will be…

Forcing social media companies to charge for accounts would be my first approach.

Either by taxing it so much that they have to, or by explicitly requiring payment. I'm not sure how you'd define "social media" vs say, HN (or is HN social media?).

Taxing advertising revenue at a higher rate could also do it (hmm, thinking about this, this might solve a lot more problems too).

For countries that don't do credit cards, there are other means - usually through the telco that provides mobile access.

Anyway - making users pay for it would associate the account with a credit card, and kids would have to do the same thing they do with mobile games and other paid-for stuff online - negotiate with their parents to get access. At least their parents would be aware.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#123

Post by slothtrop » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

meowkit wrote: post #113

marcodiego wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don't see any alternatives to banning social media, perhaps even up to the age of 18. The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. Ok. Now, how do we counter this very same argument against tv and video games?

Video games nowadays are just as bad. Children don't really watch TV (anecdotally). They watch YouTube, which is just as bad. The key difference between television and video games of yore is the feedback loop. TV and video games were one shot deployed and then ratings were gathered after, averaging across the entire audience. Now YT and video games don't have end states - same thing as social media. While you often w…

> Video games nowadays are just as bad.

They're more boring than ever. Games people tend to be most addicted to appear to be glorified network social platforms, i.e. MMORPGs/LoL and the massive online communities extending them.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#124

Post by Avicebron » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:14 AM UTC

snvzz wrote: post #81

I'd ban children from the Internet and from the phone network. Computers are fine, as long as they're offline. Countless generations of kids have grown up fine in these conditions. We already know being online is bad for them. What are we waiting for?

Well social media as it exists today didn't exist when I was first starting out online, but I doubt I'd be in the position I am today without having free reign (my parents weren't super tech savvy) on the internet as a 9-10 year old and later.

That's around when I started programming, where I got all the materials I could, made some warcraft 3 mods, that catapulted me pretty far..

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#125

Post by stevehawk » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:14 AM UTC

htag wrote: post #115

I am coming to the conclusion that my opinion on this subject is unpopular. I don't think it's a desirable thing for the government to regulate what type of software or speech happens on the internet, or runs on private silicon. Additionally, I don't like when the government takes on traditionally parental roles. Why are we all cheering on Washington to regulate the internet?

Because we don't want to be responsible for raising our own children. We only want to be responsible for blaming others for ruining our children.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#126

Post by jedberg » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #114

jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the government should ban social media, but doing it on an individual level won't work. You either turn your kid into a social pariah for being the only one not on social media, or they will just figure out a way to get into it anyway.

Ok, I'll amend my statement to mention an even more dangerous and increasingly pervasive attitude: the government should parent your kids , so I can parent my kids !

Like I said, the government shouldn't ban social media. I don't want the government parenting my kids or anyone else's. I want parents parenting their own kid.

But the government can certainly make it better by banning things that are universally bad.

I'm quite glad they kids can't legally get cigarettes. Makes my job as a parent a lot easier. Same with alcohol. I wish they wouldn't let them get coffee either.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#127

Post by htag » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:18 AM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #125

htag wrote: post #115

I am coming to the conclusion that my opinion on this subject is unpopular. I don't think it's a desirable thing for the government to regulate what type of software or speech happens on the internet, or runs on private silicon. Additionally, I don't like when the government takes on traditionally parental roles. Why are we all cheering on Washington to regulate the internet?

Because we don't want to be responsible for raising our own children. We only want to be responsible for blaming others for ruining our children.

I think it's inherently an undesirable thing to reduce the amount of liberty. I don't think it has anything to do with how anyone raises their children.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#128

Post by retox » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

The only technical way you could accomplish such a ban is to introduce mandatory ID on every website. I'm sure some groups are salivating at the mouth for such legislation.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#129

Post by 29083011397778 » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

jmull3n wrote: post #21

I'd rather not have to provide my ID and verify my identity like on certain crypto exchanges to watch a youtube video or like a friends post on instagram. I can't see any other implementation of this working, instead we'd have 2 popups now every time we visit a new site. One for cookies, the other to say "yes I'm over 18".

No, instead we could firewall the internet off behind a single-digit number of gatekeepers. Think Google and Facebook, with the engineers to build, execute, and secure a system like this. Think Apple and Amazon, who have credit card data to match a name to a digital identity.

This doesn't mean two popups, this means we forfeit the open and distributed nature of the internet in a final "Think of the children" moment.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#130

Post by RoyGBivCap » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #106

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #50

Banning things rarely works. Educating parents on how it can harm and hinder their children is a harder, but more effective approach.

> Banning things rarely works. This depends on your definition of the term "works". Prohibition of many things has had a profound effect on the shape of human society. Prohibitions on religion for example, such as the repression of the Huguenots in France and of Christianity in Japan prevented the development of Protestantism and Catholicism in those countries respectively. Prohibition and censorship of revolutionary…

You mentioned prohibition, but for some reason left out capital-P Prohibition, which brought us mobsters, speakeasys, and the US government blinding people: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-government-enforced... and was eventually repealed.

Drugs won the "war on drugs". We don't need more authoritarianism. Provide education, and let people choose. Anything else, they'll fight you on it.