311–320 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was organic the wording and the definitions in these legislations would be wildly different, the timing would be all over the place, the age limits and the methods to provide ID as well. But they are not. edited for tone
You've got a point, but why so rude?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure, that sounds right for how it is currently. my parenthesis above is probably wrong. but the whole point of my example was showing that its absolutely possible to hold parents accountable for their childs actions. there are dozens of laws that do so already. so there is no excuse why a social media ban could not be written in the same fashion as those laws, rather than moving parental responsibility onto tech com…
Laws hold parents accountable for their childrens' crimes , not their noncriminal actions . Nothing about this is saying that accessing social media is a crime -- that would be more similar to drug possession laws, firearms licensing, etc. If your child is drinking: they are violating the alcohol possession age limit themselves; you are liable for their crime plus child endangerment if you gave them the alcohol; and…
Good, social media is cancer on society and will only get worse with LLMs, Deepfakes etc. All the astroturfing in favour of social media couldn't possibly change my mind on how harmful social media has been on society.
It's funny to me that we still call it "social media", when it bears no similarities to its original form. Back when your feed was sourced from your real-life friends and colleagues, and the only "algorithms" that existed were to show your latest friend's post at the top. It's a bummer, because I think a platform that follows Facebook's original intent has just as much value in today's world, if not more.
These bans, in my opinion, are not the right way to go. Who says that once you are 16+, you are mature enough to interact with the social media apps? I'd argue that if one has never used social media when growing up, it'd even be more dangerous to open the floodgate (so to speak) once s/he reaches 17. Then, that person is not going to know what to avoid and how to curb addiction. Educating kids about the potential ha…
I don't claim there is much consistency in governments actions (ie see weed demonization for past 60 years and misery it brought when cigarettes and alcohol were just fine), but absolutely, 0 zilch sympathy for the cancer that 'social media' are these days. They can go bankrupt overnight and no amount of former facebook employees screaming about needing to feed their families or similar popular excuses would affect the big smile on my face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is pretty radical, but what if, perhaps, the children touched grass instead of doom scrolling? A simple solution would be: - measure the harmful effects of it if there are any, and make it public - tell parents to take away the kids phones while they are at home There is absolutely no need to identify everyone on the internet, or forbid kids to talk to other kids.
- Harmful effects are known, that is why those laws are created. - How is a parent going to take phones of their kid's friends? That is the main problem - your kid is going to be pressured to have a social media account. They even can have one on some old phone from their friend.
Indeed, that would be the goal, kids should be able talk to other kids their age.
The problem is, I believe, in the excessive phone and screen usage, but parents are easily able to control that (as opposed to smoking or drinking for example).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freon bans?
That was openly coordinated beginning with the Montreal Protocol. Those things work top to bottom with international accords in the beginning and don't suddenly pop up left and right inside of much less than a year. Getting a ban on lead in fuel took ages with Europe implementing it a decade later. These kind of laws usually take many years to hone down just right and talk to all parties involved. Unless some lobby g…
Then you had the Covid years where kids ended up spending a lot of time on phones and tablets, hence social media, and everyone is seeing the myriad of problems coming out of it.
Sometimes it's not a vast global conspiracy, sometimes things just suck. Also, sometimes things suck and particular groups use it to get their way, that still doesn't diminish the thing that sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a zero percent chance this is organic Why go to the silly conspiracy theory place? Up until then I was in violent agreement, but things don't need to be a conspiracy to be bad. The rules are well-intentioned but poorly thought through, which is devastatingly common for government action in digital spaces; witness the fucking cookie popups (no illuminati involved in that one, just stupidity). People and law…
why 'silly' conspiracy? Many cases of documented conspiracy in the past anyway. Being on this social media (YC) people aware it's all about implementation and we should at least demanding better solutions. If you want to regulate/limit access of kids to social media just make that you have to be 16 years old to buy simcard - in many places in EU you already have to show ID to seller. Allow parent to buy simcard to th…
As for finding a technical solution, jury is still out but I am unconvinced that it is possible to have a solution that a) prevents children from using an online service, b) allows adults to use the service, and c) does not identify the specific adult who is using the service. You proposed solution is no exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correlation does not imply causation. Your invented and evidence-less conspiracy theory is an insult to intelligence. I suspect you are seeing something that isn't there to account for an unspoken bias front and center in your mind.
People use the word "conspiracy theory" as a shield against their own ignorance. "If I don't know about it, if it sounds 'spooky' to me, it must be because it's a conspiracy theory, and therefore it is wrong," is essentially what runs through their minds. The reality is that top-down legislation is the norm rather than the exception, and there is plenty of evidence. It's not written by Joe on the street. It's not org…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You may be a libertarian, I am not. I don't label myself, but if I were forced to slap a label on myself it would be something like an anarcho communist. It's not that I don't believe in regulations helping, is that I feel like this is plastering over a deeper issue, which is parents having children, but not having enough economic security to have the time and resources to devout to their parenting properly and so…
> parents having children, but not having enough economic security to have the time and resources to devout to their parenting properly > anarcho communist I like this post about how having a box to type an age into is unreasonable since we haven’t tried simply doing… global communism?
I like this post setting up a straw man when I am not talking about a box to type age into (existed since the 90s) but about you needing to photo ID to access your OS/your OS preventing you from doing this unless you photo ID.
I'm also not sure where you get any kind of global communism from but then I am not sure you know what that even means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually no. The position I'm mocking is that we can somehow implement enforceable age restrictions on digital platforms without a verification mechanism that extends to the client level, even to the hardware. I think we need to suck it up and accept that the free-wheeling 90s are over, and using computers, the internet, and technology in general will become a much more regulated activity in the very near future, whi…
This isn't a real dichotomy. There's not a lever positioned between safety and freedom that people can collectively choose to shift one way or another. The best way to enhance safety is to directly ban the harmful behavior, not install cameras everywhere to make sure that only the right people fall victim to it. A panopticon is both less free and less safe than the world we have now, and a world where Meta and Google…