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

371–380 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#371

Post by giraffe_lady »

joenot443 wrote: post #369
giraffe_lady wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is though. > Does your company produce ads There it is, don't do that. All these other questions are also just "yes." You're looking for nuance where there isn't any. Sponsorship is ads, product placement is ads, giving free product to influencer to review is ads. There are certainly edge cases some of them likely to be thorny but none of the things either of us has mentioned so far are them.

I think there’s absolutely nuance here and pretending “make it illegal for kids to see ads” is a simple or even attainable solution is a bit naive I think. What about product placement? Nearly every movie in Hollywood from the past 40 years has some level of product placement, so under this new law we’ll either go back and edit it out or slap an R rating on it? How about arena ads or billboards? Special AR headsets f…

On further reflection it may effectively ban advertising completely and this makes me like the idea even more.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#372

Post by ojosilva »

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…

Just like the popular saying, "it's the economy, stupid!", when it comes to kids and social media we might as well say "it's the parents, stupid!"

> Like so many parents these days, my wife and I have ceded

So the parents are to blame here. "Ceded" to what exactly? To your kids unsupervised wishes? Most of the inadequate and harmful use of these addictive social networks is done at home, so, it's your jurisdiction, not the government's. Teach your kid how to use tech early on. Even if imperfect, put digital guard-rails and time limits and be on top of it at all times with discernment, commentary and openness.

> L.G.B.T.Q. child living in a household with disapproving parents might have fewer resources to find community and support because their parents would be able to look into their messages

Good argument. But, again, the disapproving parents are to blame here, not the kids. Educate the parents while giving children more channels and more people to talk to, so they don't need to go into dark digital alleys seeking relief.

You can blame polarization, the Chinese (TikTok), advertising, the Government or free-speech, but raising kids is a full-time job parents, not Uncle Sam, are supposed to do.

I'm learning it the hard way -- it's not easy being a parent of two, but the rewards are good when you are loving, persistent and listen to their needs. Trust me, if you put in the time and effort, your kids will beat addictive algorithms any time of day.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#373

Post by nextlevelwizard »

burnished wrote: post #347
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How hard is it to add "upvotes" to TikTok and fake that it is based on community feedback? How do you know that HN isn't personalized for you?

Well, you can go ahead and independently verify something like that pretty easily. Kind of weird to veer towards lies and malice at the drop of a hat here

>Kind of weird to veer towards lies and malice at the drop of a hat here

What? To me it is extremely naive to think that social media services wont try to use every single loop hole.

Also, cant help but notice you didnt actually answer the question - just dismissed it.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#374

Post by endisneigh »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #249
erfgh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think that's difficult. If no one is being paid for posting it, it's not an advertisement.

Advertisements do not have to be paid

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#375

Post by joenot443 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #371
joenot443 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there’s absolutely nuance here and pretending “make it illegal for kids to see ads” is a simple or even attainable solution is a bit naive I think. What about product placement? Nearly every movie in Hollywood from the past 40 years has some level of product placement, so under this new law we’ll either go back and edit it out or slap an R rating on it? How about arena ads or billboards? Special AR headsets f…

On further reflection it may effectively ban advertising completely and this makes me like the idea even more.

I’d be on board with that!

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#376

Post by Dave3of5 »

geysersam wrote: post #336
Dave3of5 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But is SM really responsible for bullying? Yes they are. They are not 100% responsible no but it's the main party as it provides the platform and encourages the behaviour. If their platform has become unsafe and causes harm that's the bit that they are responsible for. It's the same thing as suing a car manufacturer if the car was designed / built with a safety flaw. > The playground builders are usually not consid…

While I appreciate your thorough response (I'm not exactly sure about what to make of this topic myself) I'm still a bit skeptical of assigning the responsibility for bullying to SM companies. Physical safety in a car (or on a playground) is about the equipment itself. Bullying can also happen in a car (or a school bus!) but we wouldn't typically consider the car company responsible. Regarding SM I think it's a case…

> I'm still a bit skeptical of assigning the responsibility for bullying to SM companies.

Actually I never said this either. They should pay for the damage caused by the design of their system. The problem with these companies is they are legally shielded from any of the damage they cause. This is specific to Social Media companies. Car manufacturers are not afforded the same legal shield, neither are airlines or doctors ...etc.

Let's take a controversial subject guns. The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible on who they are sold to that would be the merchants and vendors but they should be responsible if they release a gun that explodes and kills you every 1000th bullet. They have a duty of care to design it to be safe for the user of the gun. So if you buy a gun and shoot up a school the gun manufacturer isn't responsible. It's either then vendor who sold you it (gun regs opinion) or the school (NRA opinion).

For example: Right now if you have intimate material posted about you without your permission it very difficult to get it taken down and people will just re-upload it. This has already cause many deaths. Social Media crave engagement as they use that to sell ads. That's fine but if that engagement causes damage they should pay for it. At the moment you can't really sue them for example in the USA as there is a law covering them Section 230.

> But bullying is not a problem that has a technical origin nor a technical solution, and I think trying to approach it that way might do more harm than good.

Who said this ? It wasn't me what technical solution did I propose?

I would disagree though with you statement that bullying doesn't have a "technical origin". Cyberbullying 100% has a technical origin. If you think teens are bullied in the playground first and then online that's false. Mostly now-a-days teens are bullied online first often about something on SM about them (for example an explicit picture).

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#377

Post by snapdeus »

goatlover wrote: post #255
FractalHQ wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone 8 years sober from social media, I’m convinced the benefits of banning it would far outweigh the cost.

Sounds a lot like, "I stopped drinking because it became a problem, so everyone else should too."

Drinking causes severe societal ills and is unhealthy in any amount. Everyone should indeed stop drinking. We should tax alcohol until it is unaffordable for the vast majority.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#378

Post by AlecSchueler »

vincnetas wrote: post #300
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…

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?

Aren't there already legal definitins for adverts? They're regulated today.

Edit: In the UK advertising regulations are handled by the Advertising Standards Authority who already have rules specific to advertising to children.

https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/advertising-cod...

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#379

Post by thfuran »

dustedcodes wrote: post #353
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…

100% agree. Social media is as addictive as drugs but even more damaging with life long effects on that person. A big part of going through teenage years is the development of one's own personality and finding YOUR OWN identity. Figuring out who you are and who you want to be, building real relationships with real people to learn about social contracts, trust, bonds, friendships, mistakes, and most importantly it is…

>but even more damaging with life long effects on that person.

I suspect heroin has led to considerably more felony convictions and fatal overdoses than any social media platform.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#380

Post by nextlevelwizard »

XorNot wrote: post #344
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is pretty silly arguments. People love to say that the war on drugs didn't work, but I for one haven't consumed illegal drugs even though I have been curious at times. Since I haven't spent time with people who regularly break the law I have not been introduced to any element where I could have had access to illegal drugs. So war on drugs has worked at least on me and I live under to illusion that I am s…

I reiterate my first question: how are you going to enforce it? Because the war on drugs has a very specific enforcement mechanism: people who take drugs are given criminal records, locked up in prison, and have their future opportunities permanently curtailed. Is this your plan for an under-18 accessing social media? Do you think a policy of "we're going to help teens with their mental health" is going to accomplish…

Require by law that everyone on social media authenticates their age (maybe also their names, this would be good way to get rid of bots as well). This can be done with government ID or with via your bank or even with requiring social security number when creating an account. Or government can just make a new digital ID system that you have to go and register at whatever place is suitable for this and you can use that ID for anything and everything you need.

And if that doesn't seem to work just fine social media companies say a million dollars per minor per day that minor uses the service. You see enforcement go up fast AF.

Banning all social media is even simpler.

Post reply on HN