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

Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

afterbabel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#131

Post by BlueTemplar »

Frieren wrote: post #10

Each generation of parents fails on something. This generation is failing at recognizing the dangers of social media. Teenagers and even children are being radicalized on-line, sold dangerous diets, manipulated by state sponsored creators, lied by companies, taught anti-science, and the list goes on and on. How is all this not heavily regulated? Even adults need protection from scammers, fake products, misleading ads…

I'm curious as to when was the generation that failed to recognize the dangers of invitingly large (treasure) chests. :3

(I finished watching the last episode just as you posted this comment, still giddy about it. :D

I tried to spread out watching the season for the first time over more than a week, and failed miserably...)

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#132

Post by rollcat »

zonkerdonker wrote: post #91
kgwxd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want every (any?) app knowing your exact location at all times? That's not how we "geofence" the sale of physical goods.

I imagine this could be set up on the operating system side. All the apps would receive is a go/no go signal, not fine coordinates

That would be a good start. I guess someone at Apple has already been brainstorming about it for a while. I still think geofencing is a poor bandaid to patch a problem we've created in the first place. Just like notification filtering rules, it's like liquor vendors referring you to addiction therapy.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#133

Post by Frieren »

basisword wrote: post #20
Frieren wrote: post #10

Each generation of parents fails on something. This generation is failing at recognizing the dangers of social media. Teenagers and even children are being radicalized on-line, sold dangerous diets, manipulated by state sponsored creators, lied by companies, taught anti-science, and the list goes on and on. How is all this not heavily regulated? Even adults need protection from scammers, fake products, misleading ads…

>> How is all this not heavily regulated? It isn’t properly regulated because the CEO’s and founders just moan that it isn’t possible to regulate so much user generated content. I’m of the opinion that, in that case, their sites shouldn’t exist but people seem to have convinced themselves that Facebook et al provide too much value to stand up to.

> I’m of the opinion that, in that case, their sites shouldn’t exist

I totally agree with this.

If,for example, hydrogen cars exploded all the time that will not be a reason to not regulate them but a reason for a complete ban.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#134

Post by pmarreck »

jmathai wrote: post #116
pmarreck wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would you give a kid data? (as in cell data, presumably) I guess, to be able to helicopter them from anywhere... Apple devices would still have parental controls in that case, though, I think? Cellphone companies should really step up, here.

Even if they don't have data ... they may use someone else's wifi. NextDNS configuration profiles address this - https://apple.nextdns.io/

oooh, this is good. I am bookmarking this for the future (my son is only 3.9)

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#135

Post by pmarreck »

m3rc wrote: post #111
pmarreck wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, without the comma it can be entirely plausibly framed as a nice statement, no?

That is not exactly how disciplinary or legal procedures tend to go. The intention is clear here.

Nope, it isn't. Not without the comma. And especially without context.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#136

Post by ensignavenger »

adityapuranik wrote: post #75

Back when I was graduating from Uni, one day I just decided that Snap streaks pressure was too much. I had streaks of 700 days+ with a person I barely talked to. But most of my streaks were with my best friends, people I talked to every day. It was like a daily ritual, and I couldn't escape it for a while. I decided to go cold turkey, since it felt like the only option. All my friends moaned and complained for a whil…

So after doing this for 2 years, what were the negative effects other than a few seconds spent each day?

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#137

Post by ceejayoz »

itishappy wrote: post #100
ceejayoz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend gets a new phone, gives you the old one. Neighbor has open wifi. Hide it deep in the giant pile of laundry in your bedroom. Whack-a-mole is fun at an arcade. It's not fun when it's your kids.

That's still significantly better than having it available at the dinner table, no? The goal of parenting is to raise good kids. Unfortunately, it's not always going to be fun.

We don't permit phones at the dinner table, no. Nor in the bedroom.

But we've learned things like "no Snapchat at all" make for a social pariah, which is frequently worse than the problem it's trying to solve.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#138

Post by lkirkwood »

lupusreal wrote: post #125
neilv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't guess that autism was involved in that case, and I'm a little uncomfortable with something that might sound like suggesting that autistic people might be less corporate-compatible. There are plenty of autistic people who wouldn't say what Damore did, and there are non-autistic people who would. I also know autistic people who are very highly-valued in key roles, including technical expert roles interfacing d…

On the contrary, autistic people who don't hesitate to speak uncomfortable truthes are vital to the health of organizations, and society as a whole. You would all be lost without us. (Note my indifference to your discomfort with my comment.)

In my opinion it's unhelpful to pathologize behaviour like being blunt or speaking your mind. It's just another expression of the impulse to split the world into an in-group and an out-group. I especially agree with the last paragraph of the GP. Doing this may be fun to do when you're making statements like "autistic people are inherently superior in some ways", but it's obviously an issue when some other misguided person makes a statement that I think most rational people would disagree with, such as "autistic people are inherently inferior in some ways". We are all just people.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#139

Post by stickfigure »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #123
stickfigure wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very different experience than I do! My Youtube algorithm suggestions are wonderful , full of science and engineering and history and food and travel and comedy and all kinds of weird esoteric things that would never have been viable in the broadcast TV I grew up with. I am literally delighted. Maybe you're starving the algorithm and it's trying random things? Look up how to reset the YT algo, I'm sure it'…

Perhaps, but my point is it's not 'humans communicating freely', the strange thing I see is not my choice.

I thought you had changed the subject to Youtube? Snap is person to person communication, Youtube is broadcast to the public. I don't think Youtube knows who my friends are. I wouldn't call it social media; it's just media.

It makes no sense to group these things together; "youtube leads to sexploitation" is nonsense. What I think I'm hearing is ennui about technology in general, which I can understand, but keep your arguments straight.

Re: Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale?

#140

Post by ClumsyPilot »

anon84873628 wrote: post #127
zonkerdonker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this could be set up on the operating system side. All the apps would receive is a go/no go signal, not fine coordinates

Or maybe the schools just don't let kids bring phones in at all.

That’s the same geofencing by another authority
Post reply on HN