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

New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#51

Post by SoftTalker »

surge wrote: post #34
leotravis10 wrote: post #22

This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...

First Amendment doesn't cover things that cause direct harm or speech to minors. In this case, you can draw a straight line between social media usage and an increase in teen suicides, and keeping them on it for long periods is detrimental to their overall mental health especially when they don't have fully developed impulse control or are not legally expected to. You're not allowed to advertise gambling products, al…

> You can't intentionally show porn to a minor

Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#52

Post by hot_gril »

dylan604 wrote: post #40
BuckYeah wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m always amazed by how much some people want the government to control.

It's only a natural reaction when nothing else is in control. Unless you think that social media platforms are fine as is. I understand the hesitancy to government control, but at some point, what other mechanism is there? I'm seriously asking.

The other mechanism is parenting and self-control. I'm not too concerned in the long run about which path is chosen for addictive social media; its days are numbered either way.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#53

Post by megaman821 »

owisd wrote: post #32
megaman821 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never felt any compulsion to update a feed. I would like some actual numbers of people that have a debilitating relationship with social media before we pass a bunch of laws restricting it.

Lots of people have never experienced depression but don't feel the need to claim that means it's not real.

I didn't make any sort of claim like that. The parent said most people have social media compulsion, and I doubt those claims. If you are going to ban something from an entire population of people, why should they not study the actual prevalence of harm.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#54

Post by josho »

jcranmer wrote: post #43
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is unconstitutional about it?

It's content-based discrimination, which means it goes straight to strict scrutiny.

How is it discriminating content?

It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#55

Post by kube-system »

SoftTalker wrote: post #51
surge wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Amendment doesn't cover things that cause direct harm or speech to minors. In this case, you can draw a straight line between social media usage and an increase in teen suicides, and keeping them on it for long periods is detrimental to their overall mental health especially when they don't have fully developed impulse control or are not legally expected to. You're not allowed to advertise gambling products, al…

> You can't intentionally show porn to a minor Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?

Intent is when someone mentally commits to an action

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#56

Post by fallingknife »

pessimizer wrote: post #49
BuckYeah wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m always amazed by how much some people want the government to control.

If the choice is between the government and the landlord, I choose the government.

I'll choose the one that can't come after me with guns

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#58

Post by fallingknife »

yedava wrote: post #19
avalys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same legal protections already apply. You can invite a person into your house to perform a service for you. They can define conditions on performing their service: "I'll shampoo your carpet for $50." Those conditions could also be "I'll shampoo your carpet every month if you let me read your credit card bill every month." You don't have to agree to this! If you don't want to let them read your credit card bill, y…

The tech world does not give you the choice of letting you pay for privacy or pay by invading your privacy. Now, you can nitpick that you can build your own service or host your service, but then the question becomes why is programming/sysadmin knowledge a prerequisite for using your phone?

So? You have the choice of not using the service. Companies are not obligated to give you a choice of payment type.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#59

Post by jcranmer »

josho wrote: post #54
jcranmer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's content-based discrimination, which means it goes straight to strict scrutiny.

How is it discriminating content? It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.

It's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#60

Post by varispeed »

btown wrote: post #28
vundercind wrote: post #7

The “definitions” section of the bill is a lot more decent than I expected it to be. Page 3 of the bill pdf: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A

> [The definition for Addictive Feed applies] unless any of the following 18 conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: > ... (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device; And also: > It shall be unlawful for a covered operator to provide an addictive feed to a covered user unl…

That sounds like: lets appear that we are doing something, but make it easy enough to go around so it doesn't hit our bottom line.
Post reply on HN