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

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#71

Post by dylan604 »

yamazakiwi wrote: post #47
dylan604 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They weren't referring to Social Media Platforms, they were referring to the previous poster talking about AirBnB and Gambling specifically. There are many mechanisms we can rely on, like teaching someone the tradeoffs of a dangerous decision.

You say that like addiction is just something that can be taught by parents to overcome. You can attempt to teach your kids to "just say now", but they are kids and are going to rebel against anything they are told they can't do. That's just part of being a kid. Once they do it and become addicted, telling them no is just a useless concept.

Part of the problem of laying it at the parent's feet is that there's a much larger than zero chance the parent(s) also shows addictive behavior. To quote the after school special, "I learned it from watching you, all right?" I still go back to the fact that the addictive thing is being intentionally manipulated to increase the addictive properties. It is not natural. It is the thing in and of itself that is the problem.

I don't know of any viable rehab potential for social media. I can only imagine the relapse potential would be closer to 100% than for any other drug.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#72

Post by [deleted] »

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"?

[deleted]

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#73

Post by hot_gril »

jimbokun wrote: post #68
hot_gril wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This puts parents back in control of what their kids are consuming. Without laws like this, it’s extremely difficult for parents to supervise and control their children’s media consumption.

I get that in theory a kid could sneak off to use TikTok/Instagram on some friend's device away from home, but that's not what's happening. Parents are handing their kids smartphones with unrestricted access to these apps.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#74

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #66
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-...

> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is so…

> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"?

whichever benefits them at that point in time

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#75

Post by jcranmer »

jimbokun wrote: post #65
jcranmer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.

> If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status?

They aren't common carriers and never have been.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#76

Post by hot_gril »

yedava wrote: post #70
cowgoesmoo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. Right, but you're suggesting that they should legally have to comply with this request and can't refuse service.

It's the other way around with apps. It's like I want to hire a contractor and every contractor says they have to smoke inside my house.

Which would be legal too, assuming it's a place where smoking is legal (some US cities have banned it in all multi-tenant buildings)

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#77

Post by jcranmer »

gwbas1c wrote: post #66
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-...

> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is so…

> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"?

Speech.

> Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines

As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government interest" in policing the inherently limited broadcast spectrum, which (quite frankly) is pretty shaky precedent if you ask me.

> Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed

Advertising is commercial speech, which the government has much more powerful abilities to restrict than expressive speech.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#79

Post by SoftTalker »

munchler wrote: post #62
SoftTalker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

Pornhub home page has a very clear warning before you get to anything explicit: This is an adult website This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content. I am 18 or ol…

I don't see that. And no, it's not because I have cookies from them.

Maybe it's geo-location dependent?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#80

Post by Freedom2 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #44
btown wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the name "dang" discussed here quite a bit; it seems to be an internal code name for a highly effective algorithm for surfacing relevant content. Whatever it is, it seems to be far more intelligent than any other automated system I've seen. Has HN somehow created a sentient recommendation system?

The algorithm is actually quite old. While dang is the result of numerous modern innovations, the approach has roots in a 1770 technique due to Johann Wolfgang Ritter von Kempelen de Pázmánd, who is perhaps better known for his work on speech synthesis. While you may see other users talking about "him" in a personal manner, any appearance of sentience is, I assure you, entirely ineluctable.

> ineluctable

Love to see this word used! Thank you once again HN for being a great place where I can smile every day.

Post reply on HN