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

Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

dogdogfish.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#81

Post by squigz »

plastic-enjoyer wrote: post #28

>In both of these cases (and in others), the harms are there for children and adults, but it’s only children who get banned. >I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults. >If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful…

> There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users, especially children and adolescents

Can you share some? All of these statistics I've seen seem to establish correlation, not causation.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#83

Post by philipwhiuk »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #31
RobotToaster wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of Europe it's legal for Children to drink alcohol.

True, but misleading. There are practical blocks to children drinking alcohol: they can't buy it from shops or bars. In the UK, you can buy it from 18, and you can consume it in a pub/restaurant from 16 but only with a meal and supervised by an adult. In France, you can buy it in bars from 16. An analogy would be that social media consumed by children is surely less harmful when it's a parent holding their own phone…

> In the UK, you can buy it from 18, and you can consume it in a pub/restaurant from 16 but only with a meal and supervised by an adult. In France, you can buy it in bars from 16.

This sounds really strict because of how it's phrase but the legal limit for drinking alcohol in a private space in the UK is 5.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#84

Post by philipwhiuk »

jeltz wrote: post #48
RobotToaster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I replied to specifically said "ban children from drinking", not purchase alcohol. For instance here in the UK it's legal for any child over 5 to drink in private.

Yeah, but that pedantry did not add much. Yes, we do not ban children from drinking but there are still limits on their ability to buy and consume. A responsible adult needs to be present when children consume alcohol in many countries.

> A responsible adult needs to be present when children consume alcohol in many countries.

Present? Or just buy it originally.

There are no laws similar to gun safes requiring alcohol safes.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#85

Post by M95D »

gambiting wrote: post #54
RobotToaster wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't legally buy a mobile contract in the UK if you're under 18. So in most cases the parents did buy it for the child.

You are aware that pay as you go sims are available from literally every store in the United Kindom, and any child can just buy one within minutes if they are so inclined? Not to mention that using social media does not require a phone number, and wifi is practically ubiquitous.

Prepaid sims still require presenting an ID card everywhere in Europe. (Since brexit, that might be different in UK, but I very much doubt it.)

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#86

Post by Forgeties79 »

lapcat wrote: post #76
Forgeties79 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the enforcement/adherence part. They are saying “people do it anyway, therefore we shouldn’t have the law.“ What you are arguing is actually more valid than their argument.

> They are saying “people do it anyway, therefore we shouldn’t have the law. They, more precisely I, was not making such an argument, as I already explained in another comment.

That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. This is getting kind of silly and the tone is not necessary. I think maybe it’s better for us both to move on.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#87

Post by Yossarrian22 »

squigz wrote: post #81
plastic-enjoyer wrote: post #28

>In both of these cases (and in others), the harms are there for children and adults, but it’s only children who get banned. >I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults. >If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful…

> There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users, especially children and adolescents Can you share some? All of these statistics I've seen seem to establish correlation, not causation.

Is there a statistic for anything that proves causation? I’m trying to think how you would do that as a number and not a logical argument

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#88

Post by squigz »

Yossarrian22 wrote: post #87
squigz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users, especially children and adolescents Can you share some? All of these statistics I've seen seem to establish correlation, not causation.

Is there a statistic for anything that proves causation? I’m trying to think how you would do that as a number and not a logical argument

I suppose "studies" or something similar might have been a better word.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#89

Post by Arainach »

nomilk wrote: post #52
plastic-enjoyer wrote: post #28

>In both of these cases (and in others), the harms are there for children and adults, but it’s only children who get banned. >I don’t use TikTok and it’s no skin off of my back if it gets banned. Banned or not, though, I don’t see a reason to ban it only for children. It doesn’t seem to be more harmful for them. They don’t seem to be using it lots more than adults. >If you’re going to ban TikTok because it’s harmful…

> There are now enough statistics to prove that social media has a negative impact on the mental health of users Yes, but the point of the article is compared to what . I feel negative after 15 minutes on twitter (depending on the topic, of course), but I feel far less negative than if I'd tried getting similar info from legacy sources (10x slower, and with 10x the suits, lipstick, and ads). The point isn't that soci…

> I feel far less negative than if I'd tried getting similar info from legacy sources (10x slower, and with 10x the suits, lipstick, and ads).

The data doesn't back this up - especially since legacy sources aren't algorithmically games with tricks to get you to spend way more than 15 minutes.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#90

Post by lapcat »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #86
lapcat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are saying “people do it anyway, therefore we shouldn’t have the law. They, more precisely I, was not making such an argument, as I already explained in another comment.

That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to. This is getting kind of silly and the tone is not necessary. I think maybe it’s better for us both to move on.

> That’s how it read. Which is what my previous comment responded to.

My problem with your previous comment is that it was written after my clarificatory reply to you, and indeed after your reply to that, so you obviously read my clarificatory reply, but instead of revising your initial interpretation based on my clarification, you chose, for whatever reason, to repeat the initial misinterpretation.

Post reply on HN