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

The case for banning children from social media

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#551

Post by bumby »

gspencley wrote: post #546
puglr wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context. 1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while no…

1. I don't care what people believe. Human history is full of people who moved to restrict the rights of others because of their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to me. 2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legisla…

Point taken on the fact that beliefs are subservient to data. But society is built on at least some shared beliefs. For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. That's a shared belief that isn't necessarily rooted in data. We can't just hand-wave away the idea that some beliefs are necessary for society to function. We can, however, debate which beliefs need to be shared for society to function in a particular way.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#552

Post by mxkopy »

clnq wrote: post #541
mxkopy wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience you don't become terminally online unless there's something else going on in your life. People talking about the ills of social media seem to forget that children nowadays are: institutionalized for 8 hours of their day, raised on diets of processed garbage, etc. Like, a well adjusted kid isn't going to treat social media as more important than their friends unless they think they can make a living f…

> In my experience you don't become terminally online unless there's something else going on in your life That's true, but it's also true for other addictions. > a well adjusted kid isn't going to treat social media as more important than their friends unless they think they can make a living from it or have no friends. Probably mostly true, but also a lot of friendships are moving online. > I think "dopamine bombing…

It implies a direct connection with neurochemistry that's much less direct than drugs (and even moreso diet), which can directly stimulate the release of dopamine. For example if I'm feeling tired of scrolling through memes, I can just put my phone away. I can't stop caffeine from stimulating my neurons, or ignore a macronutrient deficiency in my body.

It might be that this is an unimportant distinction in the end, but I'm not sure we know.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#553

Post by RoyGBivCap »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #547
RoyGBivCap wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ban is supposed to do more than "reduce" it's supposed to eliminate. So no, it doesn't work.

That's why I started this entire exchange with > This depends on your definition of the term "works". I think for a lot of governments and policy makers the goal is to significantly reduce. By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".

>By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".

Correct.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#554

Post by gspencley »

bumby wrote: post #551
gspencley wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I don't care what people believe. Human history is full of people who moved to restrict the rights of others because of their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to me. 2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legisla…

Point taken on the fact that beliefs are subservient to data. But society is built on at least some shared beliefs. For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. That's a shared belief that isn't necessarily rooted in data. We can't just hand-wave away the idea that some beliefs are necessary for society to function. We can, how…

> For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever.

I don't want to get into a philosophical debate here, but you can absolutely demonstrate that there are inalienable rights. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any diety, but rights derive directly from your nature as a human being. That nature being what your requirements for survival are.

As a human you have the capacity to reason and this is your primary tool for survival. That's not a belief, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. As humans we can't fly, we can't run fast, we aren't particularly strong, we don't have venom ... but we can think rationally.

We also have material requirements. We must breathe, we must sleep, we must protect our body from the elements, we have temperature requirements, we are susceptible to viruses, we require nourishment etc.

The combination of our ability to reason with our material requirements for survival mean that in order to survive as a human being you need to think and you need to be able to act. I would argue that anyone that disputes those facts, or believes otherwise, is subscribing to a belief system not grounded in reality and reason.

Your rights, as a human being, are the direct corollary of those two facts of nature. The ability to think is a requirement of your survival and that is why you have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Your material requirements for survival are the root from which your rights to acquire and own property, to associate and to travel derive.

Within a political context, these become moral sanctions on certain actions. But the "natural rights" theorists will point out that these are all things that are fundamental requirements for your survival even in an isolated context. You can't wish or "believe" these facts away.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#555

Post by bumby »

gspencley wrote: post #554
bumby wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken on the fact that beliefs are subservient to data. But society is built on at least some shared beliefs. For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. That's a shared belief that isn't necessarily rooted in data. We can't just hand-wave away the idea that some beliefs are necessary for society to function. We can, how…

> For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate here, but you can absolutely demonstrate that there are inalienable rights. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any diety, but rights derive directly from your nature as a human being. That nature being what your requirements for survi…

Natural rights do not exist outside of the belief in a social contract. That social contract is also a fundamental part of human survival. They are an extension of human reason and do not exist a priori. History is rife with examples of how natural rights is a belief that can be eroded, unlike true natural laws. Besides that, human have the capacity for reason, but this should not be confused with saying humans are rational. That means we have irrational beliefs that can contribute to survival but do not, in fact, reflect reality. That in turn means "fitness for survival" is not a rational basis for determining facts.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#556

Post by than3 »

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…

tasty, while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your characterization because it falls into a trap of giving legitimacy to groups that have no legitimacy or credibility.

Whenever you start talking about banning a specific group, your efforts are wasted because who decides the group. Someone at the top, and can they always be trusted to decide that? No.

If you need to talk about banning something outright, that's a far more approachable argument that doesn't add to the noise.

Also, it is known that the brain continues to develop after 18, there isn't some magic switch at 18 that says these people aren't still vulnerable.

Addiction and exploitation continue to happen regularly after that age, just look at gaming in general how many people are now in their 40s and spend more than 10 hours a week on gaming?

Some people are more equipped than others to deal with addiction than others, what that difference is between success outcomes and others should be promoted and studied.

Any system that can amplify or de-amplify a message runs into these problems. Its not just social media. Its algorithms too, and they are designed to exploit you and your psychology to get what they want which is profit or control in one way or another. That's what the humans who built these algorithms optimized for.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#557

Post by decafninja »

InCityDreams wrote: post #483
decafninja wrote: post #230

Tangent, but I’m at an age where many of my friends are having kids and are sharing a huge amount of their children’s lives on social media. Not my business, but I can’t help but wonder what these kids will think once they become of age and realize their entire childhood has been plastered online on Instagram. My wife and I have decided if we ever have kid, we’re never going to post a single publically viewable photo…

..their friends will take photos.

At that point, it’s a different game. We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

But I was referring to the baby, toddler, and early elementary school age where the kid has no clue what’s going on.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#558

Post by jutrewag »

mock-possum wrote: post #499
jutrewag wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. You can establish your own “identity” when you’re an adult at 18. I don’t have a religious bone in my body but I wish this law was made effective nationwide.

Just go try going back and telling that to yourself as a teenager. Can you imagine? “Sorry jutrewag I know these are your formative years, but I’m going to need you to put off that formation until an arbitrary date that I and the rest of the adults have decided upon without any input from you or your peers.” It sounds about as backwards and ridiculous as decreeing puberty blockers until they turn 18 - part of growing…

I see what you’re saying but there is some merit to kids being influenced to question their identity by outside forces when they probably would never have arrived at that conclusion themselves. You can be peer pressured into trying out a different sexuality- it happens a lot in prison, price of admission for acceptance into a new circle of friends etc.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#559

Post by jutrewag »

worklaptopacct wrote: post #385
jutrewag wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like that’s a hyperbolic take. Outside forces injecting chaos into the internal workings of a family are about as bad as things can get for a growing child. What’s the problem with deferring sexual issues to adulthood when you’re more mature?

What makes you think that a marriage between two people gives them absolute knowledge how to raise a child in an optimal way?

That’s part of the deal isn’t it. The government can’t decide and mandate what the optimal way to raise a child is outside of certain aspects like schooling, corporal punishment, age of consent etc.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#560

Post by ok_dad »

exitb wrote: post #453
ok_dad wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 creat…

There is nuance to this, sure, but I’m open to blowing it all up and seeing what emerges. Good thing I’m not the dictatorial ruler of America, I guess.
Post reply on HN