There should be a tax on infinite scrolling. It could be a better way of regulating this. Enforcement could be very difficult though, and of course it should only come into affect at a certain number of users so we don’t stifle innovation
The case for banning children from social media
171–180 of 593 posts
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#172We should really ban adults from social media as well.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In what world is LoL a social network platform? It's literally a pvp moba
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. I'm sorry, this sentence doesn't explain to me why banning social media is necessary. What are "dopaminergic" effects? Why is it so awful that social media is addictive?
Do you think it’s okay to allow children to gamble?
I dont have a problem with it
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered it might be their life's outlook? What do most of these girls have to look forward to after school? A well paying job? Most of them will have crap jobs barely scraping by, and most of them know it. A house? Most will pay absurd rates for an apartment and never build equity. Our school system is pretty trash too, depending on state. I think social media might be a scapegoat, because it's easy to, "…
Most girls today will make more than any other female generation in history. Your statement would hold true for boys. But the rates of mental illnesses and suicide are growing faster among the former. So it's probably more complicated that economic success.
> Most girls today will make more than any other female generation in history.
Which doesn't matter if actual prices inflated way past that point.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. I'm sorry, this sentence doesn't explain to me why banning social media is necessary. What are "dopaminergic" effects? Why is it so awful that social media is addictive?
Do you think it’s okay to allow children to gamble?
Some gambling is fine. Many playground games have gambling elements. Physical trading cards have a gambling element. Kids need to learn about risk and reward, and a little loss in the real or virtual world is a good way to do it.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm so tired of this argument. HN and Reddit are not social media. Reddit is very much a "social media". So is HN. Removing photo posting or allowing people to use pseudonyms doesn't exempt a site from being social media. If someone doesn't post photos to Facebook, does that make it not a social media for them? If Facebook decided to allow pseudonyms, would it not be social media?
I don't go to HN or Reddit and get anxiety about all my friends posting about their awesome lives. I go for information only. Forums, imageboards, and psuedonymous or anonymous places are not the same as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, etc >If Facebook decided to allow pseudonyms, would it not be social media? You can name your account anything on Instragram or TikTok, but even so most people will connect it to their re…
This sounds a lot like cope: let's ban stuff I don't like and keep what I do.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#178I 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…
What I propose is the banning of algorithms-powered social media. There's a huge difference between a moderated age-appropriate forum and TikTok.
Not only is it the most effective thing that doesn't require an invasion of privacy, it would increase privacy and user autonomy.
But how on earth do we start a political movement around it? Difficulty: needs a 10-second blurb that does not rely on the word "algorithm".
"See what you want to see, not what's being pushed at you" is the best I can come up with.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#179In general, it should be illegal for strangers to contact or solicit minors anonymously.
Re: The case for banning children from social media
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredibly hard for parents to intervene. Even if you ban your child from using it, since every other kid is using it, the harmful effects are still there. The best you can do is try to explain and contextualise everything your kid might be seeing, which is very hard to do. Also, not all parents are engaged with their kids as well as they should be. Having bad parents doesn't mean you're not worth protecting. >…
Who else would it be if not parents, the Government? How would that really go? Would we really have to provide our ID to Facebook and such? That would suck.
The government checks or disallows many things, i.e. drugs.
Individualism is strong in the US, but if parents sucks kids suffer.