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

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#91

Post by viraptor »

varispeed wrote: post #60
btown wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.

I think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#92

Post by hot_gril »

dylan604 wrote: post #87
hot_gril wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People here keep coming back to the social pressures of not allowing their kids on these platforms. It's one thing to give them a device for being able to keep tabs with locations and being able to get in touch with them, but once they have a device where other parents have allowed their kids on the platforms your kid will be made fun of for not being on there. The parental controls the platforms put on there are non…

A kid won't be ostracized for not having a TikTok. I survived not being on Facebook when it was big in middle school, despite a relatively few dull kids making fun. The same will apply to drugs or gambling by high school, so best learn to deal with it. There are lots of good ways to be popular. Unless of course it's a really bad area, in which case your kid will get beaten up for almost no reason anyway.

But plenty of parents are addicted to TikTok as well. In which case, wouldn't surprise me if they think the kid needs it too.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#93

Post by lxgr »

jcranmer wrote: post #82
akdor1154 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a pretty strong argument that an algorithmic feed optimised for engagement is commercial speech.

How is that feed "proposing a commercial transaction"?

It’s showing you content in exchange for your attention to their ads?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#94

Post by fallingknife »

ihumanable wrote: post #84
fallingknife wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'll choose the one that I can at least vote out.

I'll choose the one I can get rid of at will without even having to vote

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#96

Post by jacobr1 »

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"?

> Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images

Not in an increasing number of states where age verification is now required.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#97

Post by ihumanable »

fallingknife wrote: post #94
ihumanable wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll choose the one that I can at least vote out.

I'll choose the one I can get rid of at will without even having to vote

If you've found a way to participate in society without being constantly surveilled by private companies who frequently leak your most personal information, I'm all ears.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#98

Post by EasyMark »

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…

You have the right to say want you want, but that doesn’t mean parents or the state have to let you show it to teenagers.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#99

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo said in a statement that the law would "increase children's exposure to harmful content by requiring websites to order feeds chronologically, prioritizing recent posts about sensitive topics.""

In case anyone was wondering why feeds are not ordered chronologically. Has nothing to do with ads.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#100

Post by nxicvyvy »

SoftTalker wrote: post #79
munchler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Try logging out.
Post reply on HN