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

A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 516 posts

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#261

Post by xphilter »

manfredo wrote: post #101
danesparza wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulation? And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines? Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.

Video games are protected by the first amendment right to free speech and expression. Slot machines are gambling devices that take in and pay out money. The two aren't really comparable. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the regulations on slot machines only apply when they're used in real money gambling. Presumably, if someone built a slot machine that didn't take in or dispense tokens, and could not be used in gam…

Yeah, that's just not right. There are 3 questions to determine gambling: whether you pay something to play, whether there is a game of chance (a random number generator) and whether the game pays out something of value. Considering companies are making billions on virtual goods, I'd argue that a virtual good counts as a thing of value, and when tied to a random number generator (e.g., a loot box or virtual slot machine) then it's gambling (assuming it's pay to play).

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#262

Post by nkurz »

briandear wrote: post #121
kara-1234 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the light phone 2 or the KY-01L, both phone looks pretty awesome. the light phone 2 being just call, text, and the KY-01L having a web browser (though it looks so bad I probably wouldn't use it) Also both those phones have e-ink displays.

So the argument is that his phone is too good and he is sucked in? So a crappier phone is the answer? That’s like saying people drive too much so we should remove the air conditioner and radio. It reminds me of the Colonel Sanders scene in So I Married an Ax Murderer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo

That’s like saying people drive too much so we should remove the air conditioner and radio.

You imply that this is obviously a bad idea, but why? I wouldn't eliminate the idea out of hand. If cars were slightly less comfortable, maybe people would drive slightly less and walk/bike slightly more. Maybe removing temptation by having a phone that doesn't make it as easy to play games is simply a healthier choice.

As a parallel, the Amish are a societal group that isn't being overwhelmed by technology. Contrary to popular belief, the Amish don't shun technology, rather they develop rules as a community to try to figure out how to take advantage of the benefits of technology while avoiding the downsides.

In most Amish communities, the current rule is that using telephones is fine, but they are not allowed to be in the house. They tried it when they first came out, and decided it wasn't working. The current approach is to put community phones in outside sheds so they aren't too tempting, but can be used when needed: http://amishamerica.com/got-a-quarter/

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#263

Post by tspike »

rchaud wrote: post #227
tspike wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's irritating to me to hear screen time constantly discussed as a monolith. For example, I have no issue with my son playing Zelda: Breath of the Wild. He gets to poke around and experiment and explore and it has sparked a lot of imaginative play, curiosity and interesting conversations. Likewise, it's fine if he wants to watch the videos we've taken of our family, it helps him to remember relatives we don't g…

Advertising to kids happens through Youtube and Instagram, not those ugly Adsense iframes that can be spotted a mile away and at this point fall under "banner blindness" for a lot of users. I'm not a gamer so I don't know much about Zelda, but the sort of hypnotic hold some Youtube/Insta personalities have on kids is astonishing. They will parrot their talking points, talk about them relentlessly with friends and buy…

Yep.. YouTube is off limits. He's still little so social media isn't in the picture yet, will burn that bridge when I come to it.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#264

Post by mindslight »

VectorLock wrote: post #230
mindslight wrote: post #205

Calling it "screen time" is missing the elephant in the room. The largest part of the problem is that the software we're directly interacting with has been designed by companies with interests directly contrary to ours! Social interaction will inherently set off more chemical rewards, but it is the tuning of the feedback loop (optimizing for micro-interactions) that keeps us glued. Emacs/mutt/libreoffice/python/kodi…

This is the conclusion that a lot of people on HN seem to be reaching. Now how do we go about filtering out the 'bad screen' while allowing the 'good screen?'

At a very low level, I think it has to do with the motivations of whomever controls the code. At a very basic level, pitting your human brain directly against someone else's computer is a setup for defeat.

At the high level, I think we will see a more divergence / degeneralization of devices [0]. Your "phone" should be a separate item from your social media procrasturbation device. We all want some form of the latter, just not buzzing in our pocket.

In the middle? That's the (zero) million dollar question.

(I hope the next wave will be via repurposing older hardware with a Free and surveillance-resistant operating environment, but my fingers are crossed!)

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#265

Post by Izkata »

wlesieutre wrote: post #92
whatshisface wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just give me a damn phone that I can call a car or text friends on, I don't want to or need to spend hours consuming media on a giant shiny screen. But if I get a giant shiny screen foisted on me, I know it's going to happen. Giant screens aren't being foisted on you, you go to the store and pay for them. You could buy a featurephone if you wanted.

I'd like to keep the useful parts of a smartphone without optimizing the addictive parts. Too much to ask apparently.

There was a post a few months ago where someone put a greyscale filter on their phone screen, and found the "addictive" effect significantly reduced.

It was just one person, and entirely subjective, but seems worth a look.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#266

Post by tdsamardzhiev »

benglish11 wrote: post #5
trynumber9 wrote: post #3

> There is a looming issue Ms. Stecher sees in the future: Her husband, who is 39, loves video games and thinks they can be educational and entertaining. She does not. I'm still peeved so many people hate video games categorically. Age of Empires & Civilization got me into history as a kid and I checked out dozens of books as a result. Plus, the reason I ended up wanting to learn more about computers was to make game…

I've learned quite a bit about foreign cultures from Civilization which has prompted me to do my own reading/research to further my knowledge. There are also educational aspects to games like Factorio which can teach good logical problem solving and applied math skills.

I have a friend who played tons of Civ 3 back in the day. He had the most success playing Rome. This got him into Roman history and culture, which in turn got him into law. He's currently one of the most respected criminal investigators in the country. Oh, and he's writing a book about Rome!

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#267

Post by kartan »

rchaud wrote: post #219
MildlySerious wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you recommend any literature on the topic of these "tricks"? If you're not in the industry, awareness is probably the best weapon against these practices.

I'm not who you're responding to, but I like this longread from the Verge about the specific design of slot machines that fuel addictive behaviour by users: https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8544303/casino-slot-machin...

> As a result, modern slots pay out on approximately 45 percent of all spins, instead of the 3 percent of traditional slots.

I do not get this. slots pay out (RTP Return To Player) is around 90%. The article mixes volatility with RTP.

> Lower-volatility games often have greater appeal in 'locals markets' than in destination resort markets like Las Vegas or Atlantic City

This looks correct.

> During "flow," time speeds up (hours feel like minutes) or slows down (reactions can be made instantly) and the mind reaches a state of almost euphoric equilibrium.

Most sensible regulations force you to send reminders to the players that interrupt this flow. On-line betting usually has harder regulations, as to play in a casino you need to physically get there but on-line is always available.

Usually in high regulated markets each spin should last at least 3 seconds. This is so you cannot get a fast continuous flow, but the pace is forcefully slowed down.

Physical casino slots and on-line slots are slightly different as products and regulation wise.

> "People only have so much leisure time and there’s a lot of activity on iPhones"

Slot machines are competing against Candy Crush (and Royal Charm Slots from the same company), Netflix, YouTube, etc.

> Eyal criticized slot machines for what he said was a business model dependent on addicted players — "that industry, I have a problem with," he said.

And the solution is to regulated it in a way that the most addictive aspects are not possible to implement. Or to prohibit it completely, not just to move it underground. If anyone expects that the industry is going to regulate itself they are for a hard ride. No industry does that for real.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#268

Post by astrodust »

cirgue wrote: post #253
VectorLock wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the conclusion that a lot of people on HN seem to be reaching. Now how do we go about filtering out the 'bad screen' while allowing the 'good screen?'

I think the easiest heuristic is this: is the platform a delivery mechanism for advertising? If so, bad screen.

Stack Overflow, hast thou forsaken me?

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#269

Post by cirgue »

astrodust wrote: post #268
cirgue wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the easiest heuristic is this: is the platform a delivery mechanism for advertising? If so, bad screen.

Stack Overflow, hast thou forsaken me?

I wouldn’t characterize stack overflow as a delivery mechanism for ads in the same way that, say, YouTube is. Content creators on stack overflow aren’t there to make money by driving page views. (Rather, the mechanism driving page views is more utility than sensation)

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#270

Post by astrodust »

dxhdr wrote: post #209
fhood wrote: post #95

Ok, come on. There is way too much "back in my day games weren't that bad" in this thread. Do you guys remember WoW? And Diablo?!?! Talk about a game designed to target addiction centers. The issue is not games like Fortnite. The issue (as you said) is people letting their kids spend all their time playing Fortnite.

Older games like Diablo were not engineered to maximize Day 1 / 7 / 28 retention rates. All mobile games today optimize for those metrics.

That didn't stop people from playing it 28 days straight.
Post reply on HN