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

241–250 of 302 posts

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

#241

Post by thisislife2 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #238
thisislife2 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe parents can realistically protect their wards from getting hooked to any harmful, addictive drugs? How will they ever know if their kids are experimenting with these drugs? The problem is that the drugs are addictive - all it it needs is for someone to try it a few times to get completely hooked to it. And you don't realise it until it is too late.

IMO everything you said is equally applicable to social media (unless you have complete and total surveillance over your kids)

I was explaining why stopping the circulation of harmful substances, like Heroin, do require government intervention and that parents alone cannot fight it. Your conflation that such drugs are equivalent to addictive social media is something I don't agree with - they are addictive but it's a different type of addiction and the harm is different too (more psychological than physical). That said, I will concede that I mostly agree that "age verification" isn't perhaps the best approach to fight it.

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

#242

Post by MyMemoryfails »

I still think we're solving social media from wrong angle. We should fix the addiction nature, so we can still use social media for informative purposes. (like hobby forums) Before the big platforms took over, there was lots rich information sources about tech and programming I wouldnt be there if those forums did not exist. Right now its just bunch negativity dopamine hits.

It's still weird how those social media bans are essentially "anything with chat/messages requires age check".

If social media is affecting learning, then ban using phones at schools, it's been very effective all around world with no privacy risks.

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

#243

Post by atollk »

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…

I feel like you only picked the parts from my comment you cited and then decided to ignore the rest. I specifically explained WHY I am in favor of those aspects you question.

Yes, it is what I want. Would it be, in an ideal world? No. But we don't live in that world, we live in reality. You only focus on the positive aspects of the internet and frame it that way. Try this one instead:

Do you not realize that you are being brainwashed by billionaires? Companies abuse your mind, track your behavior, collect your data, all to exploit you. They want to you to become addicted, to waste your entire life consuming their content, to become antisocial and alone.

This is our current reality. So, yes, if the cost is that the goverment knows who I am while browsing to remove all of that from our lives again, it would be what I want.

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

#244

Post by thisislife2 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #224
thisislife2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yes, I should have added it is harder now because it now requires "constant vigilance" - receiving mail is easy and fine and dandy, it's the delivery part that has now become a real pain because of the BigTech gatekeepers. It's the same with social media communities too.

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

#245

Post by atollk »

raincole wrote: post #50
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…

> as drugs Because war on drugs has been such a successful policy...?

I have no idea how successful the US war on drugs has been and I don't need to, because I am not from the US and the US is not everything there is in the world. Just because one attempt to fight something bad failed, that doesn't mean every attempt ever at fighting anything bad is doomed to fail.

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

#246

Post by hackable_sand »

tarkin2 wrote: post #162

I teach children. You have no idea how much social media has affected their attention, memory, critical reasoning and social skills: the social repercussions will be felt for decades. And this isn't mentioning exposing easily malleable minds to propaganda paid for by states that see the UK as an enemy, all before their critical reasoning skills, and awareness of their emotions, and how their emotions can be used agai…

That's just a long way to say you hate Pink Floyd

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

#247

Post by atollk »

dindunuf wrote: post #84
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…

I want you to imagine the sentiment here if it was " Russia set to announce social media ban for under-16s".

I would think to myself "I hope we do the same as well soon."

If the goal is to take away mental manipulation from children, them I am all for it, no matter who does it.

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

#248

Post by atollk »

sunaookami wrote: post #104
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…

"Yes, it will lead to mass surveillance but who cares anyway? You can't just argue against that, that's anarchism!" Do you know how you sound? Stop falling for these tactics, no one is caring for the children while making these laws.

Yes, I sound like someone who cares about our well-being as humans, and I am happy about that.

Do you know how you sound yourself? A conspiracist. If indeed everyone is out to get us and wants to control our brains, then that's f'd up. But you have just as little knowledge about whether that is true as I do.

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

#249

Post by atollk »

nailer wrote: post #75
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…

> it removes the "free" internet as it was 20 years ago I’m not sure free internet was ever good for us. I didn’t need to see all those beheading videos.

That is pretty much my point. I just wanted to point that out because, next to being controlled by the government, it's the most common argument against stuff like this I see.

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

#250

Post by iamnothere »

maccard wrote: post #70
Fervicus wrote: post #31

Somehow all the countries are suddenly proposing the same thing. You'd think at least one of these countries might try something different if they actually cared about the kids, like banning algorithmic feeds. Not suspicious at all.

I don’t think it’s suspicious - I think trust globally in tech companies has been deteriorating at the same pace in most western countries is all.

Then why not regulate some other aspect of those companies? Surely the harms extend beyond children?

This is not about tech companies, they will shrug it off. It’s about containing protest and suppressing public speech.

Post reply on HN