161–170 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll leave it to the parents to handle parenting their kids.
Yeah, screw kids with bad parents. They should have been smart enough to have been born to better people who didn't have to work so many hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be legal for sale to children? What about advertising specifically targeted at getting kids interested and hooked on cigarettes? What about child labor? Why not let just parents decide what's right for their kids? There's some behaviors of corporations interacting with children that are correctly regulated in the interest of the broader society we live in. It is completely v…
Social media is not in the same category as cigarettes and alcohol. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think when companies consult with behavioral, and other, psychologists in order to craft better ways to wring more engagement out of their users, those companies are intentionally making their products addictive. I don't see it as being much different than exploiting the addictive potential of new nicotine salts, or exploiting additives to cigarettes to do the same. It can be spun however anyone wants to spin it, b…
Agreed. This is why the "metaverse" needs oversight as well. It will be a new frontier ripe for gamification, explication and general behavioral control.
Smart businesses optimize UX for conversion. FREE with no revenue is loss.
What's next? Suing vegas for the lights? You don't want to gamble? Don't go to Vegas.
They already have "How much time have I spent in here?" features.
You may not optimize yield because the children are compulsive addictive and it's the internet's fault.
What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend time there? You'll have to make it more unbearable.
Just do a little more censorship for me too, mmkay?
I don't know I'm fairly particular to this social network, Hacker News, the social network for essays. The opposite of Twitter.
So in fact I'm rate-limited because my posts are controversial, but I accept this and deliberately did not ask for full free access again. It is a better version of the no-procast (meaning no procrastination, I think it's from 2007 or 2008) feature, which can easily be worked around on short notice without talking to a human. No shame factor. Doesn't work for that reason.
And that's it! No social media addiction! And I have quite the addictive personality, been to rehab after all!
Solve my own problem in a clever way, like a hacker, hack my own Hacker News addiction! Just like it says on the box!
And I volunteer to give testimony in favor of this social network, Hacker News, in court, if it's still like it is now. Which includes suing without trying to actually solve the problem by talking to the mods, or making a post.
Note that on May 12, 2012, at 11 AM, I was declared to be a hero in terms of the Roman Law definition, at the corner of Kearney and Bush, in San Francisco California. This means victims (it can be a single victim too in other cases) call you a hero for saving them from a criminal, in the spur of the moment, right then and there, of their own accord. They had asked me to defend them and I really did defend them, the cops ended up catching the perp at the scene of the crime, it was beautiful. According to me it was beautiful, actually the victims said "That was perfect!"
I might enjoy a little more credibility because of it. That's the point of that Roman law. Apparently that law fell off the books because it flat-out never came up, not because it was a bad law. And any court can make a declaration backing this, any court, that law isn't even necessary.
Including the social addiction media court, I suppose. If you wanted to sue Hacker News you might need more ammo for that judge and jury. More expensive lawyer perhaps. More prestigious expert witnesses.
If on the other hand you want help with addiction, write me, and look at my comments where I talk about it, at https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=daniel-cussen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not give children locked down phones instead of always opting for regulation instead? The first option is much faster and immediately effective.
If a child can access porn on a locked down phone (they can, and do), they'll find a way to access anything they want. At some point you have to put some responsibility on the companies who are creating addictive experiences targeted at children.
Why don't people take personal responsibility for things? Why does there always have to be an option to sue someone?
See China, opium. The core problem is: 1) We've gotten very good at making things hyper-addictive. 2) Market forces reward clicks. Without regulation, things WILL be hyper-addictive. 3) Private right-of-action is a really good way to implement regulatory frameworks; it tends to be far more efficient than DoJ or similar for these sorts of things. Personally, I'm uninterested into being tricked into getting addicted to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you do it (serious question)? I live in US, and like China's approach on this specific issue. 1) Disallow smartphone until certain age. Which age? 2) Allow smartphone, but with parental controls. Which ones? Many of them are hackable. 3) Allow smartphone, but with time of day/week restrictions that you enforce by taking away the phone?
Not to mention, beyond the technical considerations, there's also social implications. To what extent can you remove kids from social media before they start feeling excessively socially constricted compared to their peers? For example, taking away phones altogether is likely to lead to a much harder social life. If the tech companies encourage more responsible use of social media, they can make it easier for both th…