941–950 of 1001 posts
A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it'…
Talking about the dangers of D&D or the Satanic Panic seemed idiotic to me and still do.
But when people explained why something was bad I would listen. Did their concerns seem legitimate?
I'm 50 and I've never smoked a cigarette. In the movies it looked cool. But I saw older people with horrible health issues and also the smoke smelled horrible and made their breath stink. Those people were not lying to me about the danger of tobacco.
So are people lying about the dangers of social media? But if you think it is bad for teenagers then how do you convince them that it is? I would rather have commercials with teenagers talking about how they were depressed or developed eating disorders or whatever from looking at social media. Then they stopped and now they are happier with more real life interactions.
I can tell you that I deleted my facebook account in 2016 (didn't use it much) and haven't been on instagram in 5 years. I don't miss it at all. All facebook ever did was annoy and anger me.
I was in college when this really cool idea came out: a social network database which only college students could join , regulating access to students@*.edu emails, only [obviously: TheFaceBook]. When distant relatives began sending `friend request`s, just a few years later, I left that platform forever . Seems like local school districts could reintroduce such a platform (perhaps one already exists) for class discus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing that social media provides that a private group chat with your closest people doesn't fulfill. It could be banned with nothing of value lost.
???? We're on social media right now.
No one outside of someone trying to be obtuse would put HN and Tiktok in the same category.
A lot of debate here is debating a social media ban. But what actually being banned is accounts, not access. Australian teens can still scroll TikTok, Instagram, and watch Twitch streams from logged out accounts. They just can't comment, like, or upload their own content. One might argue that this removes the algorithmic feeds. But I would wager that social media companies will just use browser fingerprinting to cont…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does this new ban move kids to using email to keep in touch with friends and family? You had social media but no ability to send DMs? In an attempt to not deliberately misinterpret you, next to zero of my current ability to keep in touch with anyone in my life via the internet, distant or otherwise, depends on social media, so forgive me if this seems like a strange take. Kids need access to YouTube in order to tal…
> In an attempt to not deliberately misinterpret you, […] Kids need access to YouTube in order to talk to their family? Your attempt has failed; obviously I’m not taking about YouTube, but about things like WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat, Instagram, and other social media which families actually use to talk to each other on a dialy basis. Perhaps you don’t use these, but most of the world population uses some of these (o…
You seem to be confusing messaging software and social media ?
Do (the others than Instagram) have an algorithmic feed, or (effectively) do not work without making an account ?
I guess that there's also Discord (that isn't on the list but has still complied) that is in an awkward in-between ?
(IMHO both Instagram and Discord ought to be banned anyway, for everyone, because they're deep web platforms that are owned by Meta/Tencent, and are therefore a threat to the open web and liberal democracy.)
I also don't like antisocial media.
Still, I dislike censorship more than that antisocial media.
A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it'…
The antisocial media may be irrelevant, but I still fail to see why a government should be able to proxy-control the flow of information. So I am totally against this. I am also against antisocial media, but I don't see why a government actor should filter and censor information here.
A lot of debate here is debating a social media ban. But what actually being banned is accounts, not access. Australian teens can still scroll TikTok, Instagram, and watch Twitch streams from logged out accounts. They just can't comment, like, or upload their own content. One might argue that this removes the algorithmic feeds. But I would wager that social media companies will just use browser fingerprinting to cont…
Is this implied, or is this detailed in the law? I can see why this would make sense. So many businesses just have a link to their facebook page as their business website, which you should still be able to view. And presuming platforms like YouTube fit the definition, banning kids from watching anything on there would be pretty rough.
> One might argue that this removes the algorithmic feeds. But I would wager that social media companies will just use browser fingerprinting to continue to serve algorithmic content to logged out users, if they aren't doing this already.
On the subject of YouTube, I wonder if they would allow for the creation of teen accounts, which restrict all social media functions but allow subscriptions. But would that then also remove algorithmic recommendations? What about data harvesting off those accounts? If so, I might have to look up how to get a teenage fake ID.