4 ms·

The lawyers sound as if if kids aren't already using the internet. It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in t

by Radle 5y ago

The lawyers sound as if if kids aren't already using the internet. It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in the 18+ internet right? Are there any arguments as to why a platform for under 13 y/o would be worse than these demographics using the normal platform?

nineplay 5y ago
The article doesn't go into detail. I've been happy with messenger kids but for me the problem would be any ability to do likes on posted content. I think one of the big self-esteem killers of facebook is posting content with 3 likes while another kid posts the same content with 30 likes. Also the option of potentially putting up content that mocks other kids. It's somewhat possible with messenger kids but the only information shared is between the few kids on a chat. If 3 kids chatting together make fun of a 4th, that sucks but that 4th kid is never going to see it. If kids Instagram mean everyone in a contact list is going to see the same content, that could be really damaging. I don't know how many people watched "American Vandal", season 2. I don't necessarily recommend it in a vacuum, but it does an amazing job showing how much kids can be devastated by social media. When I was a kid, the popular kids could make fun of me ( and probably did ) but at least it wasn't in my face - or the face of the rest of the school so they could easily join it.
quadrangle 5y ago
In https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright interview, I heard the claim that mental health issues for kids are not correlated with internet use or technology but strictly with social media in particular. Kids reading stuff or watching videos or playing games, none of that amounts to a constant numerical score of whether or not their peers "like" them.
spicyramen 5y ago
Have you used Instagram? I get recommendations for buying weapons, porn, escorts, just by reading Premier League comments
- e-clinton 5y ago
  Yea, that says more about you than it does about Instagram.
  - DSingularity 5y ago
    And how do you know that this is not the default bet of their recommendation algorithms?
- DSingularity 5y ago
  Why do you hate progress? Look at how much progress humans have made in socialization all thanks to the great Zuckerberg! Humans are now closer then ever and living meaningful, happy lives!
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  OPs point is that kids are exposed to that right now, and no turning back the clock will change that. Creating a safe zone away from alcohol, guns, etc... and adding parental controls is a step in the right direction. I'd prefer kids didn't use Instagram at all though.
  - spicyramen 5y ago
    You need to see a new big trend for fake profiles that are using big platforms such as sports and music to advertise their products. Has nothing to do with your search preferences
- ipaddr 5y ago
  If they are making a separate kids platform why would your adult ads show. You realize that by sharing those ad topics you are probably sharing too much of your interests. I get baby products.. it depends on what you've searched for lately.
toast0 5y ago
> Are there any arguments as to why a platform for under 13 y/o would be worse than these demographics using the normal platform? Without knowing anything about Instagram Kids, more parents might let their children use it if it appears safe for children. If it's not actually safe(r?), then that's more exposure. For example, YouTube Kids is almost the same garbage as YouTube, but the name implies otherwise. Neither flavor should be left unsupervised with children.
- nineplay 5y ago
  Youtube for kids is fine - at least the Apple TV app. it's carefully curated. They show The Wiggles, Yo Gabba Gabba, Kid's Bop, and some Sesame Street. It may make parents want to run and hide but I'll happily leave my 3 year old in front of it. There are ads, of course, but tolerable ones. Certainly not any worse than what I watched on commercial television back in the day.
  - tastyfreeze 5y ago
    Youtube Kids for the 7-13 group is terrible. Interesting harmless videos (mostly science related) are not available on Youtube Kids. The problem seems to be that the creator needs to label their video as kid friendly or it doesn't have a chance of being available on Youtube Kids. Videos from channels like Cody's Lab, King of Random, Smarter Everyday and similar are not available on Youtube Kids. This wouldn't really be a problem if Youtube allowed parents to mark a channel or videos as OK for their children. But, it is an outright block for children under 13 with no capacity for discretion.
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      This comes down to COPPA regulations and the fact that child friendly channels are not allowed to use targeted ads, which really slashes revenue on a site like YouTube. Creators actively avoid it.
    - nineplay 5y ago
      Totally agree, there's a gap there. I block youtube.com completely, only opening it up briefly when there's a school assignment to watch a video which I think is playing with fire. I tried to create a youtube account with whatever checkbox they have that is "please only show safe content". I subscribed to kid's science channels. The garbage that came though was astonishing.
throwawayay02 5y ago
I'd argue advertising this Instagram as a "safe zone" for children while still containing ads and allowing adult predatores to sign in would be much worse. In the normal platform at least they can be disguised as average users that seldom post anything, and there is less pressure to post anything since it's a hostile place to children in the first place.
CountDrewku 5y ago
Well let's take a look at other media targeted towards younger children/tweens. How about Fortnite? They're training to children to be degenerate gamblers by tapping into base impulses of addiction. Any company that does this only does it for purposes of getting them hooked at a young age and hoping to turn them into future coffers. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons. >It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in the 18+ internet right? Yes, but this shouldn't be done by a company that's only looking for profit. There's only so much that can be done legally to keep them away from these sorts of things and the rest of it HAS to be done by the parents. Children shouldn't have free reign of the internet and need guidance on what's appropriate and discussion on what they're seeing. I'm probably in the minority but I don't agree with just giving them smart phones/devices that just allow them to be connected to whatever they want 24/7 either.
- fungu 5y ago
  What about fortnite do you believe is "training children to be degenerate gamblers"? To my knowledge there is no "gambling" aspect of the game. Did you just randomly pick fortnite because other games have loot box mechanics and you assumed fortnite did too?
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Fortnite did have loot boxes until they were sued recently. https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295676/epic-games-fortnite-loot-box-lawsuit-settlement-rocket-league-v-bucks https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295676/epic-games-fortn.... The ability to buy skins isn't much different really. Just because you know what you're getting doesn't mean there isn't an addictive aspect to purchasing skins etc. especially when they're advertised in a manner to elicit an aggressive "i need this" response. Additionally, the actual game-play is made to be addictive and young children don't have the ability to keep this in check.
  - kfrzcode 5y ago
    Not just a specific game, but gaming culture in general, especially for the Gen-Z market, is steeped in microtransactions. I don't have specific citations but Adam Alter's book _Irresistible_ dives into this and other topics related: https://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible https://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible
tjpnz 5y ago
Given Facebook's appalling track record with moderation I wouldn't want anyone under 13 (in my own care) near it. And that's before we've even gotten to privacy.
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  What large social media sites do you consider better moderated than Facebook?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nineplay 5y ago
    I might let my kids on HN - they'd probably learn something useful. Certainly not reddit which one of the worse places on the internet for developing minds. It doesn't get mentioned much in discussions of "damaging social media" because it's anonymous and can't target people personally, but I'd wager that a lot more people have absorbed a lot more damaging content than just about any site I can think of.
  - herbst 5y ago
    Does it have to be a large site for some reason? I am sure there are hundreds of (likely paid) walled gardens for kids out there where a bunch of them even comes with proper moderation.
nicoburns 5y ago
Not many under 13 years olds I know get unrestricted access to the internet.

by Radle 5y ago

nineplay 5y ago

The article doesn't go into detail. I've been happy with messenger kids but for me the problem would be any ability to do likes on posted content. I think one of the big self-esteem killers of facebook is posting content with 3 likes while another kid posts the same content with 30 likes. Also the option of potentially putting up content that mocks other kids. It's somewhat possible with messenger kids but the only information shared is between the few kids on a chat. If 3 kids chatting together make fun of a 4th, that sucks but that 4th kid is never going to see it. If kids Instagram mean everyone in a contact list is going to see the same content, that could be really damaging. I don't know how many people watched "American Vandal", season 2. I don't necessarily recommend it in a vacuum, but it does an amazing job showing how much kids can be devastated by social media. When I was a kid, the popular kids could make fun of me ( and probably did ) but at least it wasn't in my face - or the face of the rest of the school so they could easily join it.

quadrangle 5y ago

In https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright interview, I heard the claim that mental health issues for kids are not correlated with internet use or technology but strictly with social media in particular. Kids reading stuff or watching videos or playing games, none of that amounts to a constant numerical score of whether or not their peers "like" them.

spicyramen 5y ago

Have you used Instagram? I get recommendations for buying weapons, porn, escorts, just by reading Premier League comments

e-clinton 5y ago
Yea, that says more about you than it does about Instagram.
- DSingularity 5y ago
  And how do you know that this is not the default bet of their recommendation algorithms?
DSingularity 5y ago
Why do you hate progress? Look at how much progress humans have made in socialization all thanks to the great Zuckerberg! Humans are now closer then ever and living meaningful, happy lives!
throwaway3699 5y ago
OPs point is that kids are exposed to that right now, and no turning back the clock will change that. Creating a safe zone away from alcohol, guns, etc... and adding parental controls is a step in the right direction. I'd prefer kids didn't use Instagram at all though.
- spicyramen 5y ago
  You need to see a new big trend for fake profiles that are using big platforms such as sports and music to advertise their products. Has nothing to do with your search preferences
ipaddr 5y ago
If they are making a separate kids platform why would your adult ads show. You realize that by sharing those ad topics you are probably sharing too much of your interests. I get baby products.. it depends on what you've searched for lately.

toast0 5y ago

> Are there any arguments as to why a platform for under 13 y/o would be worse than these demographics using the normal platform? Without knowing anything about Instagram Kids, more parents might let their children use it if it appears safe for children. If it's not actually safe(r?), then that's more exposure. For example, YouTube Kids is almost the same garbage as YouTube, but the name implies otherwise. Neither flavor should be left unsupervised with children.

nineplay 5y ago
Youtube for kids is fine - at least the Apple TV app. it's carefully curated. They show The Wiggles, Yo Gabba Gabba, Kid's Bop, and some Sesame Street. It may make parents want to run and hide but I'll happily leave my 3 year old in front of it. There are ads, of course, but tolerable ones. Certainly not any worse than what I watched on commercial television back in the day.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Youtube Kids for the 7-13 group is terrible. Interesting harmless videos (mostly science related) are not available on Youtube Kids. The problem seems to be that the creator needs to label their video as kid friendly or it doesn't have a chance of being available on Youtube Kids. Videos from channels like Cody's Lab, King of Random, Smarter Everyday and similar are not available on Youtube Kids. This wouldn't really be a problem if Youtube allowed parents to mark a channel or videos as OK for their children. But, it is an outright block for children under 13 with no capacity for discretion.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    This comes down to COPPA regulations and the fact that child friendly channels are not allowed to use targeted ads, which really slashes revenue on a site like YouTube. Creators actively avoid it.
  - nineplay 5y ago
    Totally agree, there's a gap there. I block youtube.com completely, only opening it up briefly when there's a school assignment to watch a video which I think is playing with fire. I tried to create a youtube account with whatever checkbox they have that is "please only show safe content". I subscribed to kid's science channels. The garbage that came though was astonishing.

throwawayay02 5y ago

I'd argue advertising this Instagram as a "safe zone" for children while still containing ads and allowing adult predatores to sign in would be much worse. In the normal platform at least they can be disguised as average users that seldom post anything, and there is less pressure to post anything since it's a hostile place to children in the first place.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Well let's take a look at other media targeted towards younger children/tweens. How about Fortnite? They're training to children to be degenerate gamblers by tapping into base impulses of addiction. Any company that does this only does it for purposes of getting them hooked at a young age and hoping to turn them into future coffers. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons. >It's fairly obvious that giving children a safe zone is still better than throwing them in the 18+ internet right? Yes, but this shouldn't be done by a company that's only looking for profit. There's only so much that can be done legally to keep them away from these sorts of things and the rest of it HAS to be done by the parents. Children shouldn't have free reign of the internet and need guidance on what's appropriate and discussion on what they're seeing. I'm probably in the minority but I don't agree with just giving them smart phones/devices that just allow them to be connected to whatever they want 24/7 either.

fungu 5y ago
What about fortnite do you believe is "training children to be degenerate gamblers"? To my knowledge there is no "gambling" aspect of the game. Did you just randomly pick fortnite because other games have loot box mechanics and you assumed fortnite did too?
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Fortnite did have loot boxes until they were sued recently. https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295676/epic-games-fortnite-loot-box-lawsuit-settlement-rocket-league-v-bucks https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295676/epic-games-fortn.... The ability to buy skins isn't much different really. Just because you know what you're getting doesn't mean there isn't an addictive aspect to purchasing skins etc. especially when they're advertised in a manner to elicit an aggressive "i need this" response. Additionally, the actual game-play is made to be addictive and young children don't have the ability to keep this in check.
- kfrzcode 5y ago
  Not just a specific game, but gaming culture in general, especially for the Gen-Z market, is steeped in microtransactions. I don't have specific citations but Adam Alter's book _Irresistible_ dives into this and other topics related: https://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible https://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible

tjpnz 5y ago

Given Facebook's appalling track record with moderation I wouldn't want anyone under 13 (in my own care) near it. And that's before we've even gotten to privacy.

saddlerustle 5y ago
What large social media sites do you consider better moderated than Facebook?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nineplay 5y ago
  I might let my kids on HN - they'd probably learn something useful. Certainly not reddit which one of the worse places on the internet for developing minds. It doesn't get mentioned much in discussions of "damaging social media" because it's anonymous and can't target people personally, but I'd wager that a lot more people have absorbed a lot more damaging content than just about any site I can think of.
- herbst 5y ago
  Does it have to be a large site for some reason? I am sure there are hundreds of (likely paid) walled gardens for kids out there where a bunch of them even comes with proper moderation.

nicoburns 5y ago

Not many under 13 years olds I know get unrestricted access to the internet.