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

Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 719 posts

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#381

Post by watwut »

bradford wrote: post #247
okhuman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.

Highly addictive to my kids for reasons that I can't grok. Unfettered social interaction with other participants in an unmonitored environment that superficially 'looks' like a video game. This social interaction leads to bullshit purchases. Not purchasing the bullshit leads to peer pressure and bullying. Is it a technical problem? is it lack of content moderation? or do social networks that are catered towards child…

My kids never paid anything on roblox. Also, the bullying you describe sounds like issue with real world bullies in group ofnkids your kids know personally. That sux and is hard to fix, but blaming roblox is weird. I would blame those kids parents.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#382

Post by hayst4ck »

komali2 wrote: post #368
hayst4ck wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the first half. TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example. You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction…

I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin. The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where societ…

I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. I think taxing them for usage that exceeds a reasonable amount of time might be a reasonable policy. I think it would be ok to 100% tax any advertising profit gained after 1 hour of use. I suppose that creates a conflict of interest because then the government directly benefits from over-use which is its own hazard. I think the most American approach would be to codify that Facebook (or other social media) is directly liable for medical treatment related to social media use creating a feedback mechanism that disincentivizes bad behavior.

I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.

I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.

> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.

I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.

Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.

In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.

Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.

Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.

I don't know how to deal with that.

Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#383

Post by spoonfeeder006 »

I get that SM can have lot of bad effects on people

But being controlled and micro-managed by your parents when you're at a stage to naturally seek independence and autonomy.... yeah, can't imagine how that would badly impact anyone of these kids. Like, at all.

How about instead empowering kids to learn about the science of tech addiction, or addiction in general, and the science of how SM effects people...and also teaching them the science of how to free ones self from addiction

Allen Carr's "Smart Phone Dumb Phone" might be a good option for instance

But micromanaging teens is the worst thing for them. We all learn from knowledge and understanding, not being controlled

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#385

Post by data_maan »

heavyset_go wrote: post #306

I feel like this is a response to the exponential popularity of sites like r/exmormon among younger generations. For example, look at these exceptions. It seems like organic, unapproved discussion between users is what the bill is trying to stifle: > (D) news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and not user generated, ... (Q) to permit comments on a digital news website, if th…

This is yet another instance of "Think of the children":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#386

Post by watwut »

hayst4ck wrote: post #111
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.

I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong. > legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself. What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product p…

> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.

Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.

Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.

I am not about to defend either.

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?

I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#387

Post by data_maan »

lucaspfeifer wrote: post #345
hooverd wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?

There are benefits to reducing anonymity: accountability, trust, relationships, etc. It's why humans evolved to recognize faces so well. We decide who to trust based on experience. It doesn't matter who controls the identification process, so long as its done fairly. And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.

There are also downsides to reducing anonymity - many more than benefits.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#388

Post by prox »

noduerme wrote: post #252
judge2020 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s exceptions for email, Netflix, Amazon, news, traditional media kinds of sites. The fact that there are 20 categories of services exempted shows that this is a terrible bill that is based on punishing specific actors and not regulating data privacy or child wellbeing in a meaningful way. for reference, line 165 to 224 of that link are the exceptions: "Social media platform" does not include an online service…

I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes. AKA forums and memes. Is that a fair analysis? [edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to st…

We believe something first and then we add our reasoning for it. That is what it sounds like. Which seems appropriate for a religious state like Utah.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#389

Post by prox »

xg15 wrote: post #363
noduerme wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes. AKA forums and memes. Is that a fair analysis? [edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to st…

> (F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, Doesn't this loophole even defeat their own hidden agenda? Almost every online game today features a chat function.

I think Discord even passes that.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#390

Post by McSwag »

komali2 wrote: post #307
McSwag wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m kind of surprised but also not surprised in the outrage over the “draconian bulls*t.” The problem I have as a parent is that I can see it causing real social damage to adults around me, my own kids, and kids around my kids. Anti-social behavior, Disrespect for authority, extreme violence is easy to see and normalized (stuff that would normally be considered traumatic), wokeness and anti-wokeness is normalized (mu…

Regardless of your ethical stance on the subject, it would be a good exercise to consider who you're ok with determining what kind of content your children can view. Allowing a government to step in to pass laws like this is a draconian step too far. As a parent do you not already have all the tools you need to ensure your children don't use tik Tok? From the light touch and mundane, using the built in features of th…

I also want to recognize that in the case of Utah’s implementation，it likely doesn’t have my best interests in mind so I do see your point. There’s always a possibility of an agenda which isn’t necessarily “good for kids.”

Maybe what we should focus on is more standardization, effectiveness of controls and requiring these trillion dollar companies to build parents one single pane of glass to monitor and control content for all platforms. May not even be feasible but it really just sounds like another engineering challenge that requires a major investment to get it done.

Post reply on HN