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

Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 453 posts

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#241

Post by card_zero »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #207
amiga386 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was programming age 5 in BASIC. Raspberry Pis are the modern equivalent and I think every child should have one. > they learn how to function without technological dependencies. So like the Amish? Or are they still too technologically dependent and children need to be banned from pulleys, fulcrums, wheels, etc.?

Pulleys fulcrums, and wheels are not addictive.

Do fulcrums even exist, as independent physical objects? What you say about them not being addictive tempts me to do an entire packet of fulcrums, but I don't know where I could buy any or what they'd look like.

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#242

Post by Vriska1 »

pembrook wrote: post #232
nullify88 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think HN is a social media site. The goals of a social media site is to keep you engaged for as long as possible with the assistance of various algorithms, dark patterns while your data is sold to businesses so they can have a slice of your attention pie via ads and supported content. I dont feel as if any of that applies here. In fact HN has gotten further from a social media site by not displaying comment p…

You can argue this, but if you hand over this authority to government, it will not be up to you. Fundamentally this is an upvote driven social media platform no different from Reddit, which everyone agrees is social media. If you live in Denmark, get ready to tie your State ID to your HN profile to login and hope that you don't say anything that would make the wrong official (or your employer) upset with you. As we k…

[dead]

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#243

Post by Sleaker »

Jap2-0 wrote: post #175
DocTomoe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teachers are not good indicators of measuring 'benefits', as they are both the beneficiaries of a more brain-dead, more bored, more asleep student body, they have rose-tinted ideas about the way things used to be, and they are also grading the success - which all too often comes down to compliance. That's why if this was a serious attempt to gauge whether smartphones are diametral or beneficial, we'd have a double-bl…

> they are... the beneficiaries of a more brain-dead, more bored, more asleep student body > 'peace and quiet' in the classroom is mistaken for educational success. To clarify, do you think that phones or the removal of phones leads to these outcomes? Do you think that teachers like or dislike phones? Or is the point that there are many biases both ways? > they have rose-tinted ideas about the way things used to be S…

You also can't have double-blind study on something both the participant and teacher know is present or not.... But that doesn't mean the study is invalid, it just means you have to account for it.

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#244

Post by rdm_blackhole »

delusional wrote: post #170
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be trolling. > it is likely, despite any mitigation measures that the provider may have taken or will take, that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material That is an absolute vague definition that basically encompasses all services available today including messaging providers, email providers and so on. Anything can be used to send pictures thes…

> This is taken verbatim from the proposal that you can find here You're taking quotes from the preamble which are not legislation. If you scroll down a little you'll find the actual text of the proposal which reads: > The Coordinating Authority of establishment shall have the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of th…

Let me address your points here and to make it more explicit, let me use Meta/Facebook Messenger as an example.

> You see, a judge, required for a detection order to be issued. That's how the judge will be involved BEFORE detection. The authority cannot demand detection without the judge approving it.

Your interpretation of the judge's role is incorrect. The issue is not if a judge is involved, but what that judge is authorizing.

You are describing a targeted warrant. This proposal creates a general mandate.

Here is the the reality of the detection orders outlined by this proposal:

1: A judicial authority, based on a risk assessment, does not issue a warrant for a specific user John Doe who may be committing a crime. 2: Instead, it issues a detection order to Meta mandating that the service Messenger must be scanned for illegal content. 3: This order legally forces Meta to scan the data from all users on Messenger to find CSAM. It is a blanket mandate, not a targeted one.

This forces Facebook to implement a system to scan every single piece of data that goes through them, even if it means scanning messages before they are encrypted. Meta has now a mandate to scan everyone, all the time, forever.

Your flawed understanding is based on a traditional wiretap.

Traditional Warrant (Your View): Cops suspect Tony Soprano. They get a judge's approval for a single, time-limited wiretap on Tony's specific phone line in his house based on probable cause.

Detection Order: Cops suspect Tony “might” use his house for criminal activity. They get a judge to designate the entire house a "high-risk location." The judge then issues an order compelling the homebuilder to install 24/7 microphones in every room to record and scan all conversations from everyone (Tony, his family, his guests, his kids and so on) indefinitely.

That is the difference that I think you are not grasping here.

With E2E, Meta cannot know if CSAM is being exchanged in a message unless it can see the plain text.

To comply with this proposal, Meta will be forced to build a system that bypasses their own encryption. There is no other way.

This view is shared by security experts, privacy organizations, and legal experts.

You can read this opinion letter from a former ECJ judge who completely disagrees with your view here:

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Vaj...

I am sorry if you think that I am arguing in bad faith. I am not.

While there is nothing I can do to make you like my arguing style, just know that I am simply trying to make you understand your misconceptions about this law.

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#245

Post by pembrook »

placatedmayhem wrote: post #216
pembrook wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of bending over backwards and appeals to authority to rationalize an emotional feeling of "This time is different." Again, every generation thinks that. This time might be different. But it's probably not.

> Again, every generation thinks that. > This time might be different. But it's probably not. And this is an appeal to tradition. This article[1] from 2024 discusses this the studies on this topic. It seems to me the results are mixed, but conclusions range between social media being neutral to harmful. There is a lot in that article, so it's worth a read. [1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/728739

When appealing to the authority of academic studies, it's very important to be aware of the replication crisis for studies in the field of Psychology specifically, which is one of the worst offenders. Reproducibility has been found to be as low as 36% [1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#247

Post by stOneskull »

mikkupikku wrote: post #103
arcfour wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, kids in the 2000s actually wanted to use social media. It's a dying industry—appropriate timing for a government to make a law to save kids from the evils of it.

> You're right, kids in the 2000s actually wanted to use social media. It's a dying industry You're either operating with an anachronistic notion of what constitutes social media, or you're very out of touch with the public. Not sure which one. The "myspaces" and "facebooks" are trending down, but other forms of social media like tiktok, discord, reddit, youtube, etc are alive and well, still hooking kids young as th…

i think the ban on youtube accounts will just be mildly inconvenient, like not being able to subscribe to channels, or chat in a livestream. they can't ban just watching youtube without an account.

Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

#250

Post by ghostpepper »

cycomanic wrote: post #151
colechristensen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be done carefully because prohibition breeds desire and adults will absolutely try to force the attitude of 35 year olds onto 15 year olds forgetting a lot of life lessons have to be learned through experience and not just told. Everybody wants to get on the wave about how children these days are so much worse because of the new thing. And literally as long as we have recorded human writing we have adults…

> This has to be done carefully because prohibition breeds desire and adults will absolutely try to force the attitude of 35 year olds onto 15 year olds forgetting a lot of life lessons have to be learned through experience and not just told. The interesting tidbit in the case of social media and smart phones is that they are at least partially pushed by the parents (I've seen plenty of examples of parents demand tha…

> The bans are being motivated largely by health professionals ringing all sort of alarm bells because mental health indicators paint a pretty dire picture. These are based on actual statistics and have been confirmed many times.

Do the stats prove that cell phones are the cause of the dire mental health indicators? Or at least that there is a correlation?

Post reply on HN