271–280 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd presumably advocate for banning it for everyone, then? If so, might I ask how you'd define 'social media'? Presumably Facebook counts. Does HN, or Discord?
No, I wouldn’t: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42266169
'"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.' So they tell us which social media is excluded, but not the definition of "social media" for what is included? Does anyone know how "social media" is being defined…
If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmounta…
"Ban social media for everyone because it might be bad for some kids" is as fragile as an argument as "ban guns for everyone because some bad guy might get his hands on one."
When I say “ban”, I mean “heavily restrict and track”, which is how I gather we are using the term “ban” in this context as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Let's do the same for drugs. Irony aside, these platforms are addictive and polarizing by design. I doubt a little test will change anything.
You're being facetious but I genuinely think it's a good idea to normalise drugs. I believe that part of the problem with drugs is that they're considered forbidden, so if you share my viewpoint then it's not too dissimilar to the problems with social media or other addictive-but-bad-for-you products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I don't understand: if you and other parents are so concerned about this... why let your children use those sites?
This describes the exact purpose of the law: to stop letting kids use those sites. My very strict uncle was adamant that my cousins stay off Facebook when they were kids. They got on anyway. When he eventually found out, it was a bad situation. If he couldn't stop his kids from getting on, only the websites themselves can.
These might be related. Of course kids will respond that way to severe strictness - it tends to happen with anything a parent acts that way about, whether it's social media, smoking, or simply hanging out with a particular group of people.
This is, still, the fault of the parent.
I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group. What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goals
Seriously though. While I don't like him even slightly, Murdoch is legit a business genius. Imagine being powerful enough that you can bend an entire country to your will. That's amazing. Sociopathic probably, but amazing nonetheless.
And in microstates too
A random municipality in the US may have more commerce or highly valued property to tax than many countries, and they draw less attention than big municipalities
A mayor or board decision from a 200 person town in Los Angeles County, for example, may never garner any challenge or news by being next to Los Angeles City which takes all local and national press time
I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group. What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and so…
This applies to under 16 year olds though, not little children but adolescents. I would hope that every parent of teenagers allows them to talk to random people on the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so. Reports that I read on conventional media sites often summarize government reports, but they do so incorrectly. And when I go and read the government reports, they present a much more balanced picture than the summaries would suggest. In particular, for marginalized teens,…
> I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so. Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688 Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 Testimony to House committee by fo…
Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study.
Given the replication crisis in psychology, the authors make bad choices in the experiment design that are not justifiable in 2022.