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

The case for banning children from social media

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#291

Post by Devasta »

erfgh wrote: post #165
amatecha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, honestly, just go all the way and ban advertising altogether (I would be so happy if this happened, even though it obviously never will). Pretty willing to tank my karma to say this, I don't care, I think advertising is one of the biggest psychological pollutants in modern society and any possible benefit (??) is vastly outweighed by the cognitive waste incurred by all who are subjected to it.

How would you define advertising? If there were no advertisements how would people know about products? They would have to read discussions and recommendations but how would those discussions and recommendations not be considered advertisements?

> If there were no advertisements how would people know about products?

Wouldn't it be terrible, won't someone think of the products? :'(

If they have a need, they can search for them.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#292

Post by oblio »

eastbound wrote: post #275
Animats wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Make it illegal to show ads to kids. You don't have to make "kid" identification airtight, because few people of any age want to opt into ads. The ad industry was very upset when the American Psychological Association proposed this back in 2004.[1] This doesn't raise constitutional issues because ads are con…

If you forbid ads, then only political propaganda with bring funding to content creators. It’s not just because you hide money that it’s not there.

His point was to show ads only to adults.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#294

Post by contravariant »

amatecha wrote: post #34
C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges. Previous attempts to block minors from accessing Web sites via broad legislation, including the Child Online Protection Act, from 1998, have been struck down on First Amendment grounds. You might get farther instead of banning children from social media, ban all ads to children on social media. Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,0…

Eh, honestly, just go all the way and ban advertising altogether (I would be so happy if this happened, even though it obviously never will). Pretty willing to tank my karma to say this, I don't care, I think advertising is one of the biggest psychological pollutants in modern society and any possible benefit (??) is vastly outweighed by the cognitive waste incurred by all who are subjected to it.

Banning ads, or at least most of them (maybe allow for some designated ads-only places) will probably be a net positive for most businesses as well by removing the rat race on ad spending.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#295

Post by inkblotuniverse »

jedberg wrote: post #126
chatmasta wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll amend my statement to mention an even more dangerous and increasingly pervasive attitude: the government should parent your kids , so I can parent my kids !

Like I said, the government shouldn't ban social media. I don't want the government parenting my kids or anyone else's. I want parents parenting their own kid. But the government can certainly make it better by banning things that are universally bad. I'm quite glad they kids can't legally get cigarettes. Makes my job as a parent a lot easier. Same with alcohol. I wish they wouldn't let them get coffee either.

Yes, you want the government parenting your (and others) kids.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#296

Post by contravariant »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #289
andreareina wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key can attest "the identity associated with this key is over 18" without leaking the identity

Why would the government do that, though?

we're so far in imaginary territory that the government doing something competently is hardly an objection.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#297

Post by inkblotuniverse »

contravariant wrote: post #296
inkblotuniverse wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the government do that, though?

we're so far in imaginary territory that the government doing something competently is hardly an objection.

It's the competence I'm afraid of! If they did it competently, they would make sure they had absolute surveillance of every american's internet history.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#298

Post by kerpotgh »

walrus01 wrote: post #58
djha-skin wrote: post #37

A bill just passed in the state of Utah where I live banning children from social media unless they have their parents permission under 18 years of age. In addition, the parents must be provided with access to all of the children's messages and posts. This now means that Facebook has to implement some sort of "are you 18" thing. Don't know how they'll implement that, reminds me of a recent law around porn in Alabama.…

The Utah law is a back-door to Christian/Mormon fundamentalists who want to enforce religious doctrine and parental control over teenagers who are attempting to establish their own identities. This will be disastrous for any teenager in Utah who doesn't meet the local-region-socially-acceptable stereotype of a normal person, such as LGBTQ. All that I can see is even more ex-Mormon teenagers who cut off their parents…

[dead]

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#299

Post by datpiff »

Tade0 wrote: post #267
jmathai wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem lies in social media itself. Unless you mean, social media for kids should be sms.

Then how do you explain the fact that the mental health effect appeared years after the introduction of social media? We had a whole platform(MySpace) come and go without such issues.

Myspace didn't overlap much with smartphones

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#300

Post by vincnetas »

Animats wrote: post #184
tastysandwich wrote: post #46

I just don't see any alternatives to banning social media, perhaps even up to the age of 18. The dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs and social media is just as addictive. It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff - especially in our highly polarised political climate. The right will immediately target "wokeness", and the left will immediately target "hate speech". And the kids will be…

> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff It's not hard. It just upsets vested interests. Make it illegal to show ads to kids. You don't have to make "kid" identification airtight, because few people of any age want to opt into ads. The ad industry was very upset when the American Psychological Association proposed this back in 2004.[1] This doesn't raise constitutional issues because ads are con…

Another problem is the definition of "ad". Is kid playing with fancy toys is an ad? Is product placement in movie an ad? How and who will determine if this is and ad or not?
Post reply on HN