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

401–410 of 506 posts

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

#401

Post by slg »

gslepak wrote: post #352
slg wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not see how this comment is actually counterproductive to the point you’re arguing? The long list of suspects, most of them being totally independent of each other is evidence of this not being orchestrated by some central group.

And yet, it is all part of a script. The future, without naming names, without knowing names, without pointing fingers, can somehow still be known and seen. So is that a conspiracy? Even if it looks like many disparate groups, clearly there is a central script, and if there's a central script, there must be a central author of that script.

>And yet, it is all part of a script.

You, AnonymousPlanet, and fc417fc802 are all responding to me in very similar ways and yet I'm not accusing you of reading from the same script or being puppeteered by the same person/group. This is because I can recognize that people can have the same thought process without any active collaboration. And yet I would have just as much evidence to make those accusations as the evidence that you provided here that all these laws have the same shady origin.

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

#402

Post by traderj0e »

chickensong wrote: post #354
traderj0e wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they obligated to still sell the liquor if you refuse the scan? The cashier specifically told me last time they're required to scan it if I want to buy that.

Yes, there's no law requiring it. It's just corporate BS. They want to scan your license, that's it. Some cashiers will push back because that's what they've been told to do, but if you ask for a manager they'll admit it's not a requirement.

I know it's not required by law to scan it, but it might be a store policy, in which case I don't think there's a law disallowing that kind of store policy. They'll tell you to shop elsewhere, and every big store does it.

The only law involved is the one that penalizes them harshly if anyone underage manages to buy liquor. If fake IDs are less likely to pass that scan, maybe that's why they do it.

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

#403

Post by slg »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #399
slg wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not see how this comment is actually counterproductive to the point you’re arguing? The long list of suspects, most of them being totally independent of each other is evidence of this not being orchestrated by some central group.

The fact that a bunch of seemingly disparate actors are behaving in a highly coordinated manner is evidence against central orchestration? What an absurd suggestion.

What counter evidence is there against you, AnonymousPlanet, and gslepak being the same person? You're all seemingly acting in a highly coordinated manner. Would it be reasonable for me to assume you're all one person? Because a suspicious similarity seems to be the only reasoning any of you are providing for these laws being centrally orchestrated.

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

#404

Post by joe_mamba »

retired wrote: post #334
joe_mamba wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? Look, I hate (Zuckerberg's) social media just as much as the next person and I would be happy if it were nuked from this planet, but firstly, a lot of this sudden age verification shit to "protect the chil…

In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16. In some countries you can even do that on public roads!

>In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16

Are you sure that's legal? If those kids kill someone with those farm death machines, who goes to jail for it? The kid or the pearant who gave him the equipment? Will your insurance cover this?

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

#405

Post by bmacho »

Sankozi wrote: post #324
bmacho wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is the main problem - your kid is going to be pressured to have a social media account. 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).

Excessive phone usage is only a minor part of the problem. Toxicity of social media is the main one.

Huh? In Norway? In what way?

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

#406

Post by Karrot_Kream »

drooopy wrote: post #365
signatoremo wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer except when it’s in the form that I approve such as HN? Where it has all the problems of social media — astroturfing, self promoting, bots, etc.

HN is as close to social media as my 3rd grade talent show was to Michael Jackson's Super Bowl halftime show.

Glad that HN is hyperbole free. Definitely not social media.

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

#407

Post by gslepak »

slg wrote: post #400
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I don't answer your question, you use the fact I didn't answer against me and if I do answer, you use the fact I answered against me as well. It's hard to take your non constructive way of arguing serious. Have a nice day.

This is a very strange response. Am I not allowed to criticize the answer you provide when it doesn't actually answer the question? For example, if I asked you who killed JFK and you responded with "It could have been Oswald acting alone or the mafia or the KGB or the CIA or Fidel Castro or a misfire from Secret Service...", you didn't actually answer the question, you just gave a list of potential answers. One of th…

They answered your question sufficiently. Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw?

Some questions aren't easy to just answer, even if the answer is known to the person being asked. Some topics are supressed rather well. If you're already acting like someone who is more interested in derailing conversations than having an honest discussion, it's unlikely you'll get the exact list of names of those primarily responsible for driving this push to KYC access to online services. Especially on a website that's heavily moderated and basically a battleground.

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #400
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I don't answer your question, you use the fact I didn't answer against me and if I do answer, you use the fact I answered against me as well. It's hard to take your non constructive way of arguing serious. Have a nice day.

This is a very strange response. Am I not allowed to criticize the answer you provide when it doesn't actually answer the question? For example, if I asked you who killed JFK and you responded with "It could have been Oswald acting alone or the mafia or the KGB or the CIA or Fidel Castro or a misfire from Secret Service...", you didn't actually answer the question, you just gave a list of potential answers. One of th…

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by slg »

gslepak wrote: post #407
slg wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very strange response. Am I not allowed to criticize the answer you provide when it doesn't actually answer the question? For example, if I asked you who killed JFK and you responded with "It could have been Oswald acting alone or the mafia or the KGB or the CIA or Fidel Castro or a misfire from Secret Service...", you didn't actually answer the question, you just gave a list of potential answers. One of th…

They answered your question sufficiently. Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw? Some questions aren't easy to just answer, even if the answer is known to the person being asked. Some topics are supressed rather well. If you're already acting like someone who is more interested in derailing conversations than having an honest discussion, it's unlikely you'll get the exact list of names of those pr…

>Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw?

What question do you want me to answer that isn't some loaded rhetorical question along the lines of "What is your motivation for denying the obvious?"

Post reply on HN