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

Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 506 posts

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#381

Post by pessimizer »

austin-cheney wrote: post #318
gslepak wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe it is spooky. I don't know and don't care. I will wait for evidence.

If you're proud of incuriousness, you'll never see evidence. I think I should be looking for evidence of the push being organic. I don't see it pushed anywhere but from the top down, even at sometimes heavy political costs to the incumbent leaders who are pushing it.

You should always be asking who politicians are serving. You seem to comfortable with thinking that they must be serving some part of the electorate without actually needing to identify that part. A lot of people think social media is bad for teenagers. There are a lot of things that are bad for teenagers that we aren't making any particular, coordinated effort to ban.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#382

Post by fc417fc802 »

maest wrote: post #372
fc417fc802 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly has a vested interest in starting a worldwide conspiracy to [ think of the children ] in order to push [ nefarious measure ]? Difficult question that.

You should actually try saying something instead of vaguely insinuating something . Like, I legitimately am trying to understand what you're saying but it's frustratingly vague. I feel like you're wasting my time with your attempt to seem like you know more than everyone else.

I did say something. "Think of the children" became a cliche because of how commonly it crops up in politics. At this point it's far more common to see it attached to nefarious measures as opposed to those with accurate statements of intent.

The bad faith rhetoric on your part is unwelcome and explicitly against the rules here ... I say to the account from 2014. Given you've been around awhile assuming you were legitimately frustrated by my comment is it possible you've misunderstood? I was quoting the parent in a manner intended to make the pattern of engagement obvious. A fill in the blank that it should be immediately apparent broadly fits past discourse on a wide array of topics.

Basically any time you can summarize an argument as "think of the children" you should immediately become maximally skeptical of the overall situation. The answer to my "difficult question" is pretty much everyone based on historical precedent.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#383

Post by [deleted] »

yumraj wrote: post #343
slg wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been drinking alcohol since time immemorial. Our laws need to overcome those longstanding cultural standards that vary greatly across the globe and therefore laws will be different too. It varies by country, but I would guess most political leaders didn't grow up in the era of social media, so there isn't some ingrained belief that kids actually need this stuff. And with growing globalization, it makes pe…

> People have been drinking alcohol since time immemorial. This is probably the reason why there is no unified age for drinking, because everyone came at it at different times from different place and have differing rationale including social, religious, cultural etc. Social media is new and there is no cultural/religious rule for/against it. So 16 is the starting point someone decided (was it Australia or NZ?), and…

[deleted]

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#384

Post by bfivyvysj »

asdfman123 wrote: post #264
slg wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been drinking alcohol since time immemorial. Our laws need to overcome those longstanding cultural standards that vary greatly across the globe and therefore laws will be different too. It varies by country, but I would guess most political leaders didn't grow up in the era of social media, so there isn't some ingrained belief that kids actually need this stuff. And with growing globalization, it makes pe…

We didn't need social media before it existed. If no one's on it, that sounds like the ideal situation for young kids.

It has nothing to do with kids or social media.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#385

Post by bfivyvysj »

pixl97 wrote: post #316
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People have been talking about social media bans for quite some time, this isn't something that just showed up out of the blue. It's a problem that's been worsening for years. 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 jus…

Nah, this doesn't pass the sniff test. Anyone saying otherwise wasn't paying attention.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#386

Post by pessimizer »

gslepak wrote: post #355
slg wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is your motivation for denying the obvious? Comments like this don’t make you folks sound less like “conspiracy theorists”. It’s also a tone that tells me that you aren’t going to approach anything I say in good faith so there is no point in me trying to engage with you on the topic anymore.

Written by sig a few minutes ago: > It's very noticeable that this is the part of my comment you responded to and not the question How funny you won't answer his question now. I'm also curious, what is your motivation for denying the obvious?

It's so aggravating to have to have arguments about whether some coordinated political push is happening due to money being spent. Literally every coordinated political push, at least ones with any success, is consciously planned and lobbied for, even the ones that I support.

I don't get pretending that no one is behind it. There are definitely people sitting in conference rooms in front of whiteboards trying to come up with ideas on how to do it most effectively. But people compartmentalize so hard, some people in that room would call you a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the meeting that they are currently attending. "I just do social media for a nonprofit. No, there's nothing wrong with us getting 90% of our funding from the US government, you're just a cynic. What evidence is there that we are working on their behalf? Do you think social media is good for teenagers?!"

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#387

Post by fc417fc802 »

slg wrote: post #353
fc417fc802 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no requirement to name specific parties in order to make observations. Regardless of motivation it's clear from past examples that laws simply do not form across international borders in this manner. The lobbying is plain as day. What is your motivation for denying the obvious?

>What is your motivation for denying the obvious? Comments like this don’t make you folks sound less like “conspiracy theorists”. It’s also a tone that tells me that you aren’t going to approach anything I say in good faith so there is no point in me trying to engage with you on the topic anymore.

I'm not trying to sound like anything. I've engaged with you in good faith, articulating my view and inquiring as to why you are denying what appears obvious to me. In response you've accused me of bad faith and explicitly refused to engage.

I cannot help that water seems wet to me but if it seems dry to you I am willing to hear you out.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#388

Post by triceratops »

slopinthebag wrote: post #207
b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what else has prohibition? Alcohol and drugs for minors.

Does it work? Minors never drink or do drugs?

Yeah I'd say it works. I've seen many minors doomscrolling on their phones. I haven't seen any with a beer in hand. That's not to say there aren't any, but there are fewer.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#390

Post by midtake »

Social media is a cancer today. When I read news like this, I think "darn kids will never know how good we had it, the internet was for nerds and not hostile!"

But as I roll that thought over in my head I wonder, was the internet ever really safe? Maybe there weren't companies messing with your psychology for profit, but perhaps it was all an espionage platform the whole time. The internet, http and html in general, has a smell of being designed from the ground up as a spy tool. It's as if we've all been filling out Obsidian documents on ourselves and voluntarily linking them, and somewhere there is a central node that can see the whole brain.

Maybe it wasn't hostile in the same way where it turns your brain into mush, but it seems like it was never safe.

Post reply on HN