The case for banning children from social media • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#451

Post by hooverd » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #442

dustedcodes wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone must do an ID check when signing up to social media. If you are not an adult yet then your account will be locked until you become 18. This would also eliminate all the bots and fake people or double/triple anonymous accounts which are trying to game the algorithm to push for certain toxic agendas. Nobody should be anonymous on social media. Social media is to connect with humans, not with trolls or bots, so…

> Everyone must do an ID check when signing up to social media. If you are not an adult yet then your account will be locked until you become 18. what is the definition of social media? does that include messaging apps? > This would also eliminate all the bots and fake people or double/triple anonymous accounts which are trying to game the algorithm to push for certain toxic agendas. any places (countries) where this…

Well, at least this does the work of doxxing people we don't like for us.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#452

Post by DrThunder » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:44 PM UTC

marcodiego wrote: post #98

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…

> 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. Ok. Now, how do we counter this very same argument against tv and video games?

That argument has always been there. Growing up my parents and most of my friends parents never let their kids just go 24/7 playing games and watching tv. We all go forced outside and had limits on exposure. Nowadays, it's just acceptable to sit your toddler down on an ipad all day long and let them do whatever they want.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#453

Post by exitb » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

ok_dad wrote: post #349

exitb wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to play the Pokemon card game with my son. Yes - his interest in that corporate franchise leads us to some spending, but I don't find that excessive for the benefit we get from it, which goes beyond fun, as he learns strategy, focus, pattern application, counting etc. I don't think my son would be better off without that in his life. I also don't find it unreasonable for the corporation to profit of the produc…

How does banning advertising, even all advertising, prevent the company from making Pokemon card games? I assume you mean the mobile game, which is very predatory with microtransactions and such (check their recent price increases for shit you can use to win the game). I would be fine with that particular type of system ("freemium", "loot boxes", "pay to win") being banned and eliminated from existence. Pokemon exist…

As I said earlier, almost all media directed at children aims to create a brand loyalty and will try to convince them to buy more. In this case I'm talking about the actual card game - it's good and features cute pretend animals, thus it makes children want related merchandise.

Moreover, Pokemon was never immune to that. The very first game already introduced the mechanic where you couldn't actually get all the creatures, which was one of the goals. In order to do that, you had to trade with friends that happened to buy a different color version. That's great, because it created engagement and communities around the game, but it's also clearly a marketing ploy.

If you fail to see this in that case, what about The Lego Movie? It's was made to make Lego relevant with the next generation of kids. It's also a good movie. And Lego sets are not bad toys to have.

It's simply not black and white and there's a big difference between Studio Ghibli selling Totoro merch and placing unhealthy snacks at a 5 year old eye level in a checkout aisle.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#454

Post by 9dev » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

debugnik wrote: post #238

9dev wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not drinking in social settings will make you worse off by a lot. People feel uneasy and judged if someone refuses to drink alcohol with them, so unless you're very strong-willed, this coerces most people into drinking. This isn't as easy as it sounds at first.

> People feel uneasy and judged if someone refuses to drink alcohol with them I always read this on HN but I've never cared, or met any adult that seemed to care, when only a few of us drink beer in a group. Is this a US/Anglosphere thing maybe?

That's because you've never been in the reverse situation. Think about not drinking at weddings, your birthday, Christmas, family gatherings in general, milestone celebration at work, and lots of other occasions where people typically drink.

I can assure you someone will ask if you're okay, urge you to drink "at least one", or "just a glass of Champaign, it's a special one".

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#455

Post by slothtrop » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

sw104 wrote: post #283

slothtrop wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it was clearly different back then If you go back far enough. I think in part we see forums through rose-tinted glasses. Moderation was looser than people are accustomed to now, and I've seen several taken over by conspiracy nuts. Some still make friends online almost the exact same way, using discord or whatever. I've been a part of communities, but never made "friends" online. The idea is a farce to me. I was…

The idea of making "friends" on the internet, on forums, Facebook, or Discord, has always been ludicrous. Unless you reach a stage where you meet up in real life and share human experiences, you're basically just talking with the equivalent of an AI chatbot.

There's a semantic problem, because we have no other word for it. There's certainly some value to what people deem online friendship, by virtue that they experience it, but that does not mean it's a replacement or substitute for in-person friendship and interaction. Even that argument can get a strong reaction sometimes which I suspect is a defense-mechanism.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#456

Post by DrThunder » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

hackernewds wrote: post #156

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…

if the dopaminergic effects are not dissimilar to drugs, and evidently just as bad, why not ban them for adults as well?

Because we live in a society (that mostly) allows adults to make choices for themselves. Just because a few adults can't handle themselves doesn't mean that all adults should be punished for it. You can say the same thing about gambling, smoking, drinking, eating sweets etc.

Also, the effects on undeveloped brains are far greater. Our job is to teach kids and raise them. Not be their friends and just let them do whatever adults do.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#457

Post by nonbirithm » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

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…

It's interesting how all the overblown controversy around violent video games decades ago can now actually be applied to social media in its current state. It was like some of the pundits were correct in forecasting the potential behavioral motivators from massively popular media, but were incorrect in the degree of harm. Video games with blood and gore were not able to cause upticks in violence, but being exposed to millions of people in one network can cause kids to show up with bruises to school.

I think it's the human factor. People aren't going to empathize with an avatar or 3D model the same way they do with a real person filming themselves with a smartphone. It makes me think that the real bar for extreme content in video games is having a politically opinionated theme, not just subtext (which no AAA studio would ever risk producing) with sufficient realism.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#458

Post by skizm » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

C50VGicCxmHC wrote: post #3

> These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges. Previous attempts to block minors from accessing Web sites via broad legislation, including the Child Online Protection Act, from 1998, have been struck down on First Amendment grounds. You might get farther instead of banning children from social media, ban all ads to children on social media. Every single ad impression shown to a child is a $1,0…

The problem is that ads and content are blurred today. I'd say something approaching 50% of "content" is actually some sort of advertisement. It would be pretty much impossible to root advertisements out of user generated content. At least ads placed by the website are clearly labeled (well they're supposed to be by law at least).

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#459

Post by webkike » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

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…

> I don't relish this solution either. When I was 13, I was on forums making online friends. I loved it. But it was clearly different back then, before smartphones, before content-creators, when the internet was mostly nerds.

If I were to ban social media for my children, I would ban specific sites like Facebook, Instagram, etc. I wouldn't ban niche forums.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#460

Post by lucumo » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:57 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #398

ojosilva wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, n…

Show me a reliable way to set a time limit on social media, and I’ll concede the point. You can set a time limit on particular paths to reach social media, but as I saw with trying to block youtube, it is effectively impossible without blocking it at router level for the whole household. Kids are so creative, and nothing is more fun than subverting digital locks. I do agree to the point that talking and listening to…

How old are your kids?

I've had no trouble just controlling the terminals. The tablets and laptop that can be used by them are stored in shared spaces. If they want to access them, they'll have to get past us.

But I can see that get more difficult when they need to have both more access and more privacy. I hope to have taught them enough by then that tripping up won't be a big issue. It's not far into the future, but I think they'll be fine.