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

The kids with phones are alright

heatherburns.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#421

Post by marysol5 »

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #182
skhr0680 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teenagers learning how to have a couple of beers with a meal would be an improvement on them turning 18/20/21 and going and getting hammered on shots

In Europe, I think it is more common tbh. Even in the UK my dad would let me try making cocktails etc. at the weekend when I was 17. It meant when I got to university I knew how much I could drink (although as a student I was too poor to drink much anyway haha) whereas there were people drinking like half a bottle of vodka. I don't drink any alcohol nowadays so it's not like it turned me into an alcoholic either.

The UK law on drinking is age 6 :D

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#422

Post by marysol5 »

laserlight wrote: post #145
toofy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> practically speaking, a phone is a necessity. no. it isn’t. my apologies for sounding more blunt than im meaning to, but, im not at all sure where i would fall on the idea of banning kids from having social media powered phones, but i know they’re not a “necessity”.

I could have been clearer. A phone is practically a necessity of modern life. Sooner or later people have to use it, unlike alcohol. Whether social media is a necessity is a different question. I bet everyone gets their own dose of it, whether they like it or not.

It really isn't

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#423

Post by marysol5 »

laserlight wrote: post #276
defrost wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A phone is practically a necessity of modern life. It isn't yet. > Sooner or later people have to use it, unlike alcohol. So far I've avoided having a smart phone, I've not had a mobile phone since flip phones - I went off always being contactable about that time, having had bleeding edge sat phones for decades. I have a land line, an answering machine, travel, purchase, am part of several overlapping businesses an…

> It isn't yet. Would you care to elaborate how you don't think a phone is not “practically necessary”? I have never personally met someone like you. I've never known someone who personally met someone like you either. Theoretically, nothing is a necessity. That's why I wrote “practically”. Practically nobody lives like you do.

I've had smart phones since the first Android, and my whole live revolves around my digital data (even more so when I have 2FA on everything)

But I've had plenty of moments in my life without a phone, be it the battery is dead, or I've lost/broke it. And I've survived fine.

I've had to re-engineer some parts of life, but yet I remain...

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#424

Post by marysol5 »

Nursie wrote: post #161

I'm with the "This whole article is a non-sequitur" crowd. The old pervert using his camera shouldn't be doing that. His behaviour was not OK. Nobody is talking about keeping kids off social media because their behaviour is not OK. They're talking about keeping kids off social media because they believe it's harmful to them, and that the companies designing the products know it's harmful and addictive. We can disagre…

I find it interesting too how the problem was "taking pictures of kids", and yet we have an edited, but not-anonymised video, that has LOTS of shots of the same kids, including the shots the man took. There's substantially more in this video than what the man did.

And also the article they link to, went to the effort to black out their faces.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#425

Post by marysol5 »

karahime wrote: post #222
alt227 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phones and social media are a completely new type of pacifying and attention stealing threat which we have only just begun to discover the effects of. This is not your standard 'kids are doomed' rhetoric.

No, they're not, and yes, it is. I sincerely hope we do not take phones and other computers from future generations. That would be a terrible thing to do to them.

Nobody is "taking phones and other computers"

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#426

Post by marysol5 »

ColdStream wrote: post #148
RetroTechie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smartphones are fomes peccati . Smartphones aren't, some apps on them are. (besides being unneeded or a nuisance in some situations)

I have said it for a long time. Look at the original iPhone release. It was a hyper focused device that was designed to consolidate devices, make using a phone easier so that you could get on with your day. Once the app store and opened the gate for social media to wonder in, that is when these things got turned into potential addiction machines.

I mean, that's just saying it's 3rd party developers who are the fault.

Like SM companies

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#427

Post by marysol5 »

exodust wrote: post #397
mrguyorama wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is delusional. Normal people have been calling social media addictive since before facebook existed.

Sugar is addictive. TV is addictive. Reading is addictive. Stuff is addictive. Take some responsibility over your own impulses, desires, and life balance. "Govern me harder daddy" isn't something I subscribe to as a method of dampening the addictive forces surrounding us.

>Take some responsibility over your own impulses

But they're not, parents aren't employing the very tooling available right now. SM platforms already have a minimum age, and yet many parents are literally friends with their 8yo childs faked profile

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#428

Post by marysol5 »

mcmoor wrote: post #99
Barrin92 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the even more direct analogy is the Arab Spring, where social media and phones were widely advertised as a means to bring evil dictators down, as a democratic, youth empowering anti evil old pervert technology. The tech industry obviously jumped onto it because it's a rhetorically powerful argument but it tells you very little what the systemic consequences are ten years down the road.

It's still funny how much it's celebrated because it brings down establishments, not realizing it'll also bring down their own. Reminds me of why no one should start biological warfare.

MAD is another one, the concept of firing your nuke means you lost. So you have to spend a lot of money to have said nuke and keep it available, just so you DON'T use it...

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#429

Post by marysol5 »

Lerc wrote: post #12
j45 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age 16-17 is very different than Ages 5-10 for kids to carry a device. The former is no issue. I just don't think the author's take is nuanced as they think. Kids (Age 5-13) safety is of ultimate importance. Devices, independently are also a major issue in schools. Social media use of bullying also is a major issue. To the point they are banned.

Removing a means of bullying that leaves a trail is not the same thing as removing bullying. It's just removing undeniable bullying. If people truly agreed that children needed to be protected from the desires of others, teaching them that a particular religion is the true one would be restricted until they were of an age where they could provide informed consent. For some, communication devices are the only way to e…

"A trail" that will be ignored by the very same authority figures who ignore literally violence done in front of them.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#430

Post by marysol5 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #287
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting reversal of the "think of the kids" argument, though: think of the kids who could have used their phones to document their mistreatment at the hands of alcoholic perverts.

Why are we conflating having a camera with social media that is addictive?

Because the article is nefarious
Post reply on HN