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

UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 302 posts

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#221

Post by eesmith »

ajkjk wrote: post #172
BigJono wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.

We... are... talking about regulating and banning them. That is what is being done. Talking about regulating and banning them. Not > Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts Whatever this is. We would be in agreement that would be bad. The debate is over whether this is that , rather than whether that is bad . Misunderstanding that makes all the discussi…

The UK is talking about regulating and banning their consumption.

The UK does not have that ability to regulate and ban their production. The US regards such attempts as illegal foreign censorship.

Ban the sale or use of personalized information for marketing or advertising purposes.

Force the companies to develop effective parental controls (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48530053 for links to how the current controls are not effective.)

Once those all decisively fail then we can perhaps talk about "welcoming of the internet police state and voicing support for removal of the free internet".

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#222

Post by jbvlkt »

markus_zhang wrote: post #59

I like it. We don’t need social media. It is just a convenient way for the elites to collect data and push agendas, and people can communicate in other online ways without limiting themselves to short attention span, doom scrolling and others. TBH I’d be happy that it doesn’t exist. Quebec has it, too. IMO it should be banned for under-18s instead of under-16s. The only problem is how to enforce it.

Exactly, I stoped using all social media and I feel way better and my screen time went significantly down. It is harder to communicate with some people (have to use email or sms) but it reduced mostly meaningless small talk we can do in person.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#223

Post by davb »

drnick1 wrote: post #124
stavros wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He posted, on a social media website.

HN is not "social media," in a conventional sense, far from it. For one, it is completely anonymous, at least if you want it to be.

But under Ofcom rules, it is social media if we are to assume that they’ll apply the same scoping as the Online Safety Act does for user-to-user services. I think a lot of comments here assume that only sites like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter/X would be in scope, but I see no reason why they wouldn’t use the same definitions from the OSA (essentially any site where user-to-user communication and content posting takes place, including forums and aggregators).

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#224

Post by zimpenfish »

thisislife2 wrote: post #153
Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

> The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. I grew up on that internet too (the freedom part). Do you really believe it is the same internet now? Gone are the days when one could run their own mail server now because Apple or Google or Microsoft can suddenly deem it as "untrustworthy" or "suspicious" (based on some algorithm) and all your email will end up in spam. IRC and newsgr…

> Gone are the days when one could run their own mail server now because Apple or Google or Microsoft can suddenly deem it as "untrustworthy" or "suspicious" (based on some algorithm) and all your email will end up in spam.

Someone should tell my mail server that because it happily delivers emails to Apple and Google and Microsoft destinations.

(I will concede that it is much more of a ballache these days than it was 25 years ago but such is the way when capitalism intrudes with adequate legal oversight.)

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#225

Post by slopinthebag »

Aurornis wrote: post #74
atollk wrote: post #29

I know many people dislike this movement but really, I think it's a good idea. Yes, it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago, but that's gone already anyway. Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access, but arguing against any law to be against that just seems like straight up anarchism to me. I see both children and adults being manipulated by corporations with "algorith…

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

Why shocked? When the internet got popular and the normies started flooding in the culture of the internet changed.

I’m more shocked in how authoritarian so-called “liberals” have gotten in the last 3 decades. I have to specify I’m a “classical” liberal now in order to not appear as if I desire a police state.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#227

Post by philipallstar »

theultdev wrote: post #211
philipallstar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.

Riddle me this. If you have to verify yourself to prove you are over 16, did that just deanonymize you? Yes.

Good job I said this, then:

> The problem is it requires surveillance.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#228

Post by slopinthebag »

_heimdall wrote: post #106
Aurornis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really, I think it's a good idea. > Yes, it removes the "free" internet > Yes, it opens up the way to a police state without anonymous internet access Is anyone else as stunned as I am by how many posters on tech websites have suddenly gone full anti-free-internet and embracing the police state? The internet I grew up on was all about freedom and resisting the police state. Now the top voted comment (at least a…

It doesn't surprise me at all. At least in the US, both major political parties fully embrace censorship and a police state. Sure the disagree on the details, but they agree pretty universally on the direction.

I believe this is the outcome of technocracy. Technocrats need power, they need a strong police to enforce their legislation, and they need censorship to maintain a narrative. It's a deeply authoritarian ideology, and it's infected much of the western world.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#229

Post by philipallstar »

arcza wrote: post #38
philipallstar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.

and why do you get to decide what it "is about"?

I didn't say people couldn't decide what it's about.

Re: UK set to announce social media ban for under-16s

#230

Post by Peanuts99 »

kyledrake wrote: post #88

When considering how to think about these restrictions, I turn to my 15 year old self back in the 90s and ask him "would you want the government to block you from using IRC, forums, guestbooks, and social web sites?" His response would have been "go to hell", and he would have figured out a way to get around it anyways. Unless they're actually planning to track one government ID per person in a database, a truly horr…

Social media sites today are nothing like the forums and guestbooks of the 90s. Social media now is highly effective at developing addiction like symptoms as well as driving people to decisive topics and conspiracy theories. It has a measurable effect on teenagers wellbeing and academic performance too.

My bigger concern is the how rather than the why on this topic.

Post reply on HN