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

271–280 of 302 posts

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

#271

Post by acheron »

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…

“Suddenly”? Remember all the “net neutrality” bullshit years ago that was all about begging the government to regulate the Internet? This has been going on since the early 00s probably. If you’re old enough to remember the 90s and earlier Internet then yes, it’s a strange thing to see, but that ship has sailed, circumnavigated the globe, and been decommissioned.

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

#272

Post by peab »

drnick1 wrote: post #117
maccard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is parental controls on devices.

The solution is parenting, period. Do not give your kid an Internet-connected device before they are ready for it.

yeah, but lot's of bad parents exist. Which is why there are laws around kids having to be in school, etc.

Maybe fine the parents if the kids get caught. Teaches them to teach their children better.

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

#273

Post by Natfan »

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.

hn is a user-to-user service

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

#274

Post by ElProlactin »

theultdev wrote: post #264
ElProlactin wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your solution? There's substantial evidence for harms on young people that go beyond surveillance, but I guess we now live in a society that embraces throw them to the wolves and see which ones survive ?

The only proper solution always used for children. Parent's discretion. Other people's kids are not my nor the governments business. I will restrict social media as I see fit for my children. Don't need a nanny state. No need for "think of the children". You shouldn't be thinking of my children, they are fine. Worry about yourself and your own kids.

> The only proper solution always used for children. Parent's discretion.

Cigarettes. Alcohol. Gambling. Weapons. Credit cards and financial products. Solvents/aerosols. Fireworks.

There are tons of products and services that are subject to regulation for children because society has concluded (wisely in most cases) that it is not always possible or effective to rely on parental discretion to prevent harm.

> You shouldn't be thinking of my children, they are fine.

Extreme individualism is in my opinion one of Western society's biggest sore spots right now but I'd like to point out one very practical issue with this approach as it relates to social media.

I can keep my kids off of social media, but social media can still harm them. Your kids can take photos and videos of my kids and post them online without anyone's consent, and use social media to bully my kids.

There is a growing body of evidence about the harms of social media on children's' mental health, particularly as it relates to bullying, and plenty of cases of suicides caused by it.

But I suppose there are other possible solutions. We could enact laws that levy more significant civil and perhaps even criminal penalties on parents whose children use social media to harass and bully. Right now, when parents are found liable for damage caused by their children, civil penalties are usually pretty modest.

If your children, who you say are fine, do something to make my children not fine, you should be willing to take full responsibility for that, right?

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

#275

Post by philipallstar »

theultdev wrote: post #266
philipallstar wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good job I said this, then: > The problem is it requires surveillance.

So it's not "obviously about kids" then.

This is like saying "people using cars to get places is really about oil".

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

#276

Post by kyledrake »

Peanuts99 wrote: post #230
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.

I'll agree with you that I'm far more worried about the how than the why, exponentially more worried.

I'm just not sure if "this time it's different". There was abundant decisive political smearing and conspiracy theories on Geocities. They had an entire section called Area51 (https://geocities.restorativland.org/Area51). There was a politics neighborhood that had a bunch of crass political bashing (it's pretty funny to read about someone off his rocker about Janet Reno). There was also the Art Bell show playing in every radio market with him interviewing vampire experts and whatnot. The old Internet/culture really wasn't all that different than it is today.

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

#277

Post by sunaookami »

atollk wrote: post #248
sunaookami wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Thanks for destroying our free society, I appreciate it.

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

#278

Post by Gigachad »

ksec wrote: post #167
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…

>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? There is certainly an angle where people are fed up with the current state of things. But generally speaking, the overall HN has been trending towards anti-free-internet and embracing the police state for a long time. I am pretty sure people can run an LLM on HN comments o…

The optimism has faded after a decade of tech leaders all turning out to be unbelievably evil.

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

#279

Post by Gigachad »

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.

World leaders pay attention to the world. Australia implemented the law and it went smoothly. So naturally other world leaders are going to see that as a green light that the general public is on board and the tech companies complied.

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

#280

Post by Gigachad »

drnick1 wrote: post #117
maccard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is parental controls on devices.

The solution is parenting, period. Do not give your kid an Internet-connected device before they are ready for it.

The problem is everyone else’s kids is on social media. As a teenager I never had a Facebook account, but every other kid did and every event was organised and invites sent on Facebook.

It could have been done over sms, email, or any other private messaging, but because everyone was on Facebook, if you weren’t too, you weren’t invited.

Post reply on HN