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

Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 506 posts

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#81

Post by FrankyHollywood »

brazukadev wrote: post #16

It is funny to see all countries afraid of doing what should be done: fine and block the social media companies that don't fix their brainrot algorithms. Adults are not better at handling them than kids.

For me it's funny to see the discussion is completely black-white, like everyone is hooked.

I have 3 kids, 2 use their phones like half an hour at a time, the other is completely hooked, hours and hours. If I don't intervene he doesn't dress in the morning, and continues until he really can't keep his eyes open anymore somewhere around 3am.

For him I use the parental control on my router. All his devices have time limited wifi, and he has no data in his phone plan. Since I've done this he goes outside more, and has developed other interests. Today he actually prepared lunch for us, a 14 year old boy!

My point is, I think it's better to help your kids use their phones moderately instead of completely blocking. I once heard from an alcoholic who always keeps beer in his fridge. Not to drink it, but to be sure you learn to deal with this shit, and wherever the beer is, you can manage not taking it if you don't want it.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#82

Post by john_strinlai »

contagiousflow wrote: post #76
qup wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to hold parents liable.

Can you give an example for this?

"Parental responsibility laws in all 50 states"

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PARENTAL-...

an excerpt from above:

"Almost every state has some sort of parental responsibility law that holds parents or legal guardians responsible for property damage, personal injury, theft, shoplifting, and/or vandalism resulting from intentional or willful acts of their un-emancipated children."

"Parental responsibility laws are one vehicle by which parents are held accountable for at least a minimal amount of damage caused by their children as a result of intentional acts or vandalism"

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#83

Post by wrs »

john_strinlai wrote: post #82
contagiousflow wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example for this?

"Parental responsibility laws in all 50 states" https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PARENTAL-... an excerpt from above: " Almost every state has some sort of parental responsibility law that holds parents or legal guardians responsible for property damage, personal injury, theft, shoplifting, and/or vandalism resulting from intentional or willful acts of their un-emancipated children." "Parental respon…

Using social media is not a crime. I think what we’re talking about here is child welfare or child protection laws (which all 50 states probably also have).

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#84

Post by pj_mukh »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #70
pj_mukh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Decent schools also ban phones now as well." Yes and decent countries ban social media, because like schools, the countries recognize this is a collective action issue. You get your children a smartphone when it becomes the only way they can connect with their peers. That's my point.

That's very different from schools banning use of phone during school hours. And, no, your role as parent is not to blindly follow the herd if you think it is not good. That's certainly true for smartphones and, again, there is parental control if/when you get your children a smartphone. You can only bring a horse to water, as the saying goes... My cynical take is that social media are a convenient tool for governmen…

"your role as parent is not to blindly follow the herd if you think it is not good."

This is just conservative individual responsibility pablum just re-imagined for IT.

"It doesn't matter if all of societies forces + giant multi-national tech corporations are conspiring to trap your child, individual responsibility is all that matters"

This argument doesn't work for smoking or drinking, and it shouldn't for social media.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#86

Post by bschwarz »

qup wrote: post #75
pokstad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Big tech shouldn’t rely on ID laws. We should hold big tech liable when we find them in violation. Shift the onus to them.

We used to hold parents liable.

Adults should be protected from these predatory services as well.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#87

Post by john_strinlai »

wrs wrote: post #83
john_strinlai wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Parental responsibility laws in all 50 states" https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PARENTAL-... an excerpt from above: " Almost every state has some sort of parental responsibility law that holds parents or legal guardians responsible for property damage, personal injury, theft, shoplifting, and/or vandalism resulting from intentional or willful acts of their un-emancipated children." "Parental respon…

Using social media is not a crime. I think what we’re talking about here is child welfare or child protection laws (which all 50 states probably also have).

if disallowing social media use below the age of 16 becomes a law (like the article's proposed bill), and a kid breaks that law, this seems like a perfect example of holding the parents liable?

but also yes, child welfare laws and such are also pretty fitting examples. i dont think the person asking for an example was really asking in good faith, anyhow.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#88

Post by bitwize »

idle_zealot wrote: post #73
bitwize wrote: post #65

> government: bans social media for under 16. > hackernews: "Good. It's about time government took action. The only cure for these abusive capitalist companies is government regulation." > government: passes law requiring age verification at the OS level > hackernews: "Oh no! How could this happen? We have to fight this you guys. For sure if it weren't for big tech lobbyists we wouldn't have to worry about draconian…

And your position is that the government doing anything is bad, then? Better to just resign yourself to abusive capitalists? The position that you're mocking is the belief that some laws are good and some bad. The fact that you seem to find that objectionable is baffling.

Actually no. The position I'm mocking is that we can somehow implement enforceable age restrictions on digital platforms without a verification mechanism that extends to the client level, even to the hardware. I think we need to suck it up and accept that the free-wheeling 90s are over, and using computers, the internet, and technology in general will become a much more regulated activity in the very near future, which is going to suck for people who make touching computers their entire personality, but greater society has decided that protection from certain severe social harms is worth the price paid.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#89

Post by davidee »

FrankyHollywood wrote: post #81
brazukadev wrote: post #16

It is funny to see all countries afraid of doing what should be done: fine and block the social media companies that don't fix their brainrot algorithms. Adults are not better at handling them than kids.

For me it's funny to see the discussion is completely black-white, like everyone is hooked. I have 3 kids, 2 use their phones like half an hour at a time, the other is completely hooked, hours and hours. If I don't intervene he doesn't dress in the morning, and continues until he really can't keep his eyes open anymore somewhere around 3am. For him I use the parental control on my router. All his devices have time li…

Thanks for sharing.

Former alcoholic, I got similar advice early on. It was life changing.

Blocking social media is no different from existing laws for cigarettes, alcohol and various other substances. Nothing wrong with using them, but we do restrict self-serve access for developing minds.

Sure, kids will find a way. That said, like a glass of wine at dinner, parents are free to share their social media experiences with their kids; safely, supervised, limited.

Re: Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

#90

Post by gmanley »

idle_zealot wrote: post #73
bitwize wrote: post #65

> government: bans social media for under 16. > hackernews: "Good. It's about time government took action. The only cure for these abusive capitalist companies is government regulation." > government: passes law requiring age verification at the OS level > hackernews: "Oh no! How could this happen? We have to fight this you guys. For sure if it weren't for big tech lobbyists we wouldn't have to worry about draconian…

And your position is that the government doing anything is bad, then? Better to just resign yourself to abusive capitalists? The position that you're mocking is the belief that some laws are good and some bad. The fact that you seem to find that objectionable is baffling.

It's twofold, these are laws that are delving more and more into regulating the personal lives of its citizens and as a side effect forcing the de-anonymization of the internet. This in a way that makes it easier for the government to track your internet usage and if we're talking OS level verification, maybe even more than just internet usage.

If you really want to go after abusive capitalists, then go straight to the source. Regulate the things that are making this ban look like a good idea.

We've already had reports of the UK's Online Safety Act resulting in a convenient uptick in defamation lawsuits. Certainly not because the government can now easily track who posted a tweet that ruffled the feathers of someone important. So yeah, at the cynical end, I question the motivation of these laws and at the charitable end, I worry about the direction these laws are moving and their impact.

Post reply on HN