4 ms·

It’s not completely off-base to compare these “for kids” branded apps to candy cigarettes and big league chew. Not to mention the data collection.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thatguy0900 5y ago
I just now connected big league chew to tobacco, I use to buy it all the time from the tee ball concession stands. That's funny.
throwawayboise 5y ago
Exactly. It's getting the kids conditioned and addicted to devices just like Pavlov's dogs. Facebook knows exactly what they are doing here.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It is human nature to want to converse with others. The internet itself makes it extremely convenient to be in a 24/7 chat with your crew, so it’s addictive with or without Facebook.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  Yes, Facebook doesn't create that out of mercy. But what is the alternative aside from becoming Amish? You can't take away smartphones completely. And once there is the smartphone a communication app is the most useful thing they can get. Better than any game or whatever. But an open messaging app can quickly lead to issues. Would be good if there were non-profit vendors of similar things, bit they don't exist, yet.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    And Facebook entrenching itself reduces the chance of a non-profit vendor succeeding.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    There is probably a middle ground somewhere between being hopelessly addicted to Social Media and going Amish and throwing away all technology. Someone mentioned the other day on HN that Social Media is the modern-day Smoking, and I agree there are a lot of parallels. Surely we can keep our kids out of S.M. without restricting them from using other, less harmful parts of technology.
  - bun_at_work 5y ago
    The alternative isn't becoming Amish. It's being more mindful about how your children interact with new technologies. Facebook/Instagram/etc aren't required for children, and even if there are good arguments for social media for children (like learning how it works), that doesn't mean letting the children have unfettered access to the tech and letting these companies have unfettered access to the children's attention. Here's an alternative: restrict usage to a simple time-boxed window each day, contingent on the completion of what the child needs to have done (chores, homework, etc.). Augment that by limiting what apps the child will have access to, based on what is reasonable at the time. It requires effort, but seems totally reasonable. There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for children having continuous access to devices that have empirically been shown to cause serious mental health issues, not even including the crazy dangers of the internet (stalking, child sexualization, etc). Alternatively, don't control anything the child does and hope it works out.
    - johannes1234321 5y ago
      Well, communication is the primary feature I would allow. Back in my days it was typical for us to run to the phone booth "mom, I'm still out playing, will be late for dinner" Now there aren't phone booths anymore. The concept of the kids messenger by Facebook sounds right. Quite risk free communication, which allows giving the kid freedom without having to always look over their shoulder what they are doing. As said: that being not from Facebook would be great!
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder if that just wouldn't happen latter anyway. As seen from many generations that had the "formative" childhood before smart phones and most social media.
bootlooped 5y ago
There's a harm reduction argument to be made: kids are using digital devices already (probably too much) so one way to improve the whole situation is to make using them safer for kids. I'm not a parent, but I imagine controlling your kids electronic device use is a difficult task. The jump to them having a smartphone must be like a dam being blown apart with dynamite.
- HenryBemis 5y ago
  So our dear FB is helping us get them depressed faster, 'safer', and with a nice blue icon, and we should let it happen? Facebook is cancer. Letting this play out will only condition kids be more immersed/addicted to social media. How can that be good for them now? How can that be good for them in the future? Facebook has proven that they toy with its users, their psyche, their privacy. This will definitely come to hurt them in the future. Either by FB selling out every 1_and_0 they got on you, or allowing 'by accident' another scammy CambridgeAnalyticaV2 to siphon all your data, or by getting hacked and disclosing that 2 years late.
  - bootlooped 5y ago
    If you're familiar with any other harm reduction efforts, pretty much the same arguments are made against all of them. Take for example needle exchanges. People who run needle exchanges are not asserting that people being addicted to heroin is a good outcome, only that people being addicted to heroin and also having to share dirty needles is worse. Likewise, I'm not asserting that little kids using Facebook products is a good outcome, only that it may be less bad than other outcomes.
    - agogdog 5y ago
      Needle exchanges aren't willingly run by heroin manufacturers. It's impossible to believe in harm reduction when it comes from the harm producer. I'd be much more willing to accept this as harm reduction if Facebook outsourced the task to an independent non-profit... but even that arrangement comes with pro-Facebook biases.
    - 5y ago
an_opabinia 5y ago
> It’s not completely off-base to compare these “for kids” branded apps to candy cigarettes and big league chew. In terms of verisimilitude, it is 49.9% off base to compare for kids branded apps to tobacco use. In terms of intellectual honesty, it is 99.9% off base to compare for kids branded apps to tobacco use. If you want guidance on app use for your kids, ask a pediatrician a specific question. You'll get more knowledge than flaming on this place.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

thatguy0900 5y ago

I just now connected big league chew to tobacco, I use to buy it all the time from the tee ball concession stands. That's funny.

throwawayboise 5y ago

Exactly. It's getting the kids conditioned and addicted to devices just like Pavlov's dogs. Facebook knows exactly what they are doing here.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It is human nature to want to converse with others. The internet itself makes it extremely convenient to be in a 24/7 chat with your crew, so it’s addictive with or without Facebook.
johannes1234321 5y ago
Yes, Facebook doesn't create that out of mercy. But what is the alternative aside from becoming Amish? You can't take away smartphones completely. And once there is the smartphone a communication app is the most useful thing they can get. Better than any game or whatever. But an open messaging app can quickly lead to issues. Would be good if there were non-profit vendors of similar things, bit they don't exist, yet.
- anoncake 5y ago
  And Facebook entrenching itself reduces the chance of a non-profit vendor succeeding.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  There is probably a middle ground somewhere between being hopelessly addicted to Social Media and going Amish and throwing away all technology. Someone mentioned the other day on HN that Social Media is the modern-day Smoking, and I agree there are a lot of parallels. Surely we can keep our kids out of S.M. without restricting them from using other, less harmful parts of technology.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
  The alternative isn't becoming Amish. It's being more mindful about how your children interact with new technologies. Facebook/Instagram/etc aren't required for children, and even if there are good arguments for social media for children (like learning how it works), that doesn't mean letting the children have unfettered access to the tech and letting these companies have unfettered access to the children's attention. Here's an alternative: restrict usage to a simple time-boxed window each day, contingent on the completion of what the child needs to have done (chores, homework, etc.). Augment that by limiting what apps the child will have access to, based on what is reasonable at the time. It requires effort, but seems totally reasonable. There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for children having continuous access to devices that have empirically been shown to cause serious mental health issues, not even including the crazy dangers of the internet (stalking, child sexualization, etc). Alternatively, don't control anything the child does and hope it works out.
  - johannes1234321 5y ago
    Well, communication is the primary feature I would allow. Back in my days it was typical for us to run to the phone booth "mom, I'm still out playing, will be late for dinner" Now there aren't phone booths anymore. The concept of the kids messenger by Facebook sounds right. Quite risk free communication, which allows giving the kid freedom without having to always look over their shoulder what they are doing. As said: that being not from Facebook would be great!
Ekaros 5y ago
I wonder if that just wouldn't happen latter anyway. As seen from many generations that had the "formative" childhood before smart phones and most social media.

bootlooped 5y ago

There's a harm reduction argument to be made: kids are using digital devices already (probably too much) so one way to improve the whole situation is to make using them safer for kids. I'm not a parent, but I imagine controlling your kids electronic device use is a difficult task. The jump to them having a smartphone must be like a dam being blown apart with dynamite.

HenryBemis 5y ago
So our dear FB is helping us get them depressed faster, 'safer', and with a nice blue icon, and we should let it happen? Facebook is cancer. Letting this play out will only condition kids be more immersed/addicted to social media. How can that be good for them now? How can that be good for them in the future? Facebook has proven that they toy with its users, their psyche, their privacy. This will definitely come to hurt them in the future. Either by FB selling out every 1_and_0 they got on you, or allowing 'by accident' another scammy CambridgeAnalyticaV2 to siphon all your data, or by getting hacked and disclosing that 2 years late.
- bootlooped 5y ago
  If you're familiar with any other harm reduction efforts, pretty much the same arguments are made against all of them. Take for example needle exchanges. People who run needle exchanges are not asserting that people being addicted to heroin is a good outcome, only that people being addicted to heroin and also having to share dirty needles is worse. Likewise, I'm not asserting that little kids using Facebook products is a good outcome, only that it may be less bad than other outcomes.
  - agogdog 5y ago
    Needle exchanges aren't willingly run by heroin manufacturers. It's impossible to believe in harm reduction when it comes from the harm producer. I'd be much more willing to accept this as harm reduction if Facebook outsourced the task to an independent non-profit... but even that arrangement comes with pro-Facebook biases.
  - 5y ago

an_opabinia 5y ago

> It’s not completely off-base to compare these “for kids” branded apps to candy cigarettes and big league chew. In terms of verisimilitude, it is 49.9% off base to compare for kids branded apps to tobacco use. In terms of intellectual honesty, it is 99.9% off base to compare for kids branded apps to tobacco use. If you want guidance on app use for your kids, ask a pediatrician a specific question. You'll get more knowledge than flaming on this place.