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

The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#161

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

kelipso wrote: post #140
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning kids from alcohol, cigarettes, and sex sure did work. I can't think of a single kid I went to school with that did any of these things (and certainly not me). All those laws and rules were absolutely effective in preventing us as kids from doing them. /s

What kind of argument is this? "Banning murder sure did work. I can't think of a single person who did any of those things. /s". Bans would work for >90% of kids and that's good enough.

There is a big difference between personally knowing a lot of people that do a thing, and hearing about some stranger on TV who did a thing.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#162

Post by sunaookami »

inigyou wrote: post #137
sunaookami wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not both. It's an excuse for mass surveillance.

So you think the children aren't being harmed? Or they are being harmed but we shouldn't make it illegal?

You are still pretending it's about children when it's not.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#163

Post by dang »

IshKebab wrote: post #160
dang wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "call out" is already an indication that HN is not being used as intended ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... ). You can make your substantive points without any of this. If you feel that someone else is posting incorrect information, it's sufficient to post correct information. Getting aggressive about it is unnecessary and damages the commons.

Well, I'll have to agree to disagree on that. What is moderation if not "calling out"?

Calling out, as I understand it, is a tactic of online shaming. We try not to shame anyone, although it does still happen unintentionally.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#164

Post by inigyou »

sunaookami wrote: post #162
inigyou wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think the children aren't being harmed? Or they are being harmed but we shouldn't make it illegal?

You are still pretending it's about children when it's not.

You are ignoring the question I directly asked you.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#165

Post by inigyou »

guilhas wrote: post #151
inigyou wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we've been doomed since we banned children from buying cigarettes, or even further back, since we banned children from having sex with adults. Do you really think banning those things made society worse?

Not sure limiting people access to information sharing, content discovery, and virtual communities, is comparable to smoking

Not sure how limiting people's access to good feeling, novel flavor, and freedom torches is comparable to social media

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#166

Post by IshKebab »

dang wrote: post #163
IshKebab wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'll have to agree to disagree on that. What is moderation if not "calling out"?

Calling out, as I understand it, is a tactic of online shaming. We try not to shame anyone, although it does still happen unintentionally.

Oh that's not what I understand it to mean. It's more like highlighting or challenging.

See meaning 4.3 here:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/call_out

Like someone close to Trump could call him out by saying to him that Meloni didn't beg for a photo with him.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#167

Post by ungreased0675 »

infotainment wrote: post #18
ungreased0675 wrote: post #4

The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.

The answer, IMO, is simply banning all algorithm-driven social media, for everyone and not just kids. This conveniently sidesteps the identity/privacy arguments, makes it much easier to enforce, and would present an even greater net benefit. There is no benefit to algorithmic social media at all, and everyone would be better off without it.

I’d support that too, unless someone can make a case for the individual or societal benefits of an infinite feed?

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#168

Post by dang »

IshKebab wrote: post #166
dang wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling out, as I understand it, is a tactic of online shaming. We try not to shame anyone, although it does still happen unintentionally.

Oh that's not what I understand it to mean. It's more like highlighting or challenging. See meaning 4.3 here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/call_out Like someone close to Trump could call him out by saying to him that Meloni didn't beg for a photo with him.

That definition is close to what I mean! But I think you'll find that in online vernacular, to "call $person out for $thing" has the association of publicly shaming $person for some $thing that the caller-outer believes they did, considers bad, and wishes to punish them for and/or pressure them into not doing again.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#169

Post by Planktonne »

duxup wrote: post #154
Planktonne wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this legislation is perfect, but I think it's a response to the bad actors pretending for decades now that they were concerned about freedom while acting against it. This is the result of people no longer having any trust in people who claim to care for freedom while harming others; you can't keep drawing from a poisoned well.

I think it undermines the entire reasoning not dealing with the bad actors and reasonably questions what the actual intent is. Social media companies bad ... laws imposed by government on individuals who aren't the people doing bad things. That's absurd.

I agree, but it's a response to the first undermining: to a tech industry that insisted it could never be regulated without tyranny while at the exact same time supporting every social evil and tyranny.

"We're not the bad actors!" doesn't cut it when half the people saying it absolutely are.

Re: The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents

#170

Post by IshKebab »

dang wrote: post #168
IshKebab wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that's not what I understand it to mean. It's more like highlighting or challenging. See meaning 4.3 here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/call_out Like someone close to Trump could call him out by saying to him that Meloni didn't beg for a photo with him.

That definition is close to what I mean! But I think you'll find that in online vernacular, to "call $person out for $thing" has the association of publicly shaming $person for some $thing that the caller-outer believes they did, considers bad, and wishes to punish them for and/or pressure them into not doing again.

Oh yeah good point - that is definitely part of the woke movement. I didn't mean it in that sense anyway.
Post reply on HN