4 ms·

This idea is about punting responsibility onto parents. This way FB can claim the responsibility is not on them but on parents. It's in many ways a legal maneuv

by mfer 5y ago

This idea is about punting responsibility onto parents. This way FB can claim the responsibility is not on them but on parents. It's in many ways a legal maneuver. The reality of helping kids requires parents who are well enough informed and engaged here. This is something we don't have. I've talked with many people outside of tech circles and they are typically unaware of any consequences to kids. Sometimes they just don't believe it. This isn't about helping kids. It's about shifting legal responsibility so they can keep doing what they do.

zelon88 5y ago
I think it should be the parents responsibility. If we let social media determine what is acceptable for all children it is guaranteed that the bar will be too low for many and too high for many others. Parents should be the final say in what is right for their kids. Kids develop at vastly varying rates. Not absolving themselves of liability implies that they are making decisions in a vacuum that parents should be making themselves. But like you said, most parents don't understand the risks. That's why social media should be forced to perform studies on the risks associated with their products and make those studies public. Then, when you use a device for the first time it should show you in plain language - like a new user signing into Windows ("Hi, we're getting everything ready for you...") - where to find that information. When a single change of code can instantly impact millions of children (or anyone really) the stakes for the public are high enough that the public deserves transparency. If nothing else to ensure that Instagram is making decisions backed by due diligence.
- mfer 5y ago
  > I think it should be the parents responsibility. Parents and corps aren't the only ones in this conversation. There is also governments. Should we have let parents decide if kids smoking was ok or not? Some governments stepped in and required labels be placed on packages and set age limits. I'm not saying that the way smoking was handled was right or wrong. I'm using it to illustrate that there are other angles and players. > That's why social media should be forced to perform studies on the risks associated with their products and make those studies public. One of the things I've found is that studies performed by an organization on their stuff tend to show it in a much better light than independent studies. When there is a financial interest people tend to contort things to improve on their financial interest. I don't want to see studies from them. I want independent studies with researchers who are allowed to get enough data to perform them. > Parents should be the final say in what is right for their kids. What happens when you have uninformed parents? I'm reminded that these tech companies are using strategies meant to hide the knowledge of what they're doing from the people they're doing it to. How do you handle that part of the equation?
  - zelon88 5y ago
    > What happens when you have uninformed parents? I'm reminded that these tech companies are using strategies meant to hide the knowledge of what they're doing from the people they're doing it to. How do you handle that part of the equation? I think if we had enough transparency we would get less uninformed parents. We force slot machine manufacturers to put addiction warnings on their machines, and only a couple hundred people use one of those per day. Facebook has no warning labels and they use the same techniques. It is no secret today that gambling is dangerous and addicting.
    - mfer 5y ago
      To have warnings requires government intervention. It's not just a thing that involves parents, kids, and companies.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Tangent: incidentally, we don't force addiction warnings on games in the arcades, even though those machines use many of the same techniques and actively misrepresent themselves as games of skill, while being games of chance. This is one of those open secrets that pisses me off to no end.
Spooky23 5y ago
Agreed. Facebook, et al is essentially pushing a casino / Skinner box at my kids that evolves every day. My change in thought happened when I found out that Facebook/YouTube was pushing pro-eating disorder material to a teenage relative and my 6 year old was getting pulled into weird videos that had a visible impact on his behavior. I don’t work for Facebook and frankly don’t have the energy to stay up on the latest innovations for stealing my kids attention at any cost. The only responsible choice that I can make as a parent is to not use it, but that obviously creates a forbidden fruit situation where I have to balance what I believe against peer pressure and other factors to avoid a worse outcome. Avoidance also means that the great material on these platforms is walled off. Running a cesspool is too profitable for self-reform, something needs to change the way this business works.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> It's about shifting legal responsibility so they can keep doing what they do. Minors are the legal responsibility of parents. However I get your point. No, I don't think its actually that. I think its much worse than that. I think they thought it might be a good safe idea. If I was being uncharitable I'd say they looked at tiktok hoovering up the next cohort of instagram users and thought, we can provide a safe way to do that and convert them onto our platform. All the problems we've had with instagram, facebook and friends reunited are going to pop up on tiktok, but all at the same time and for a younger, less well equipped generation.
canada_dry 5y ago
> punting responsibility onto parents The end result will be T&Cs that few parents will read, and they will simply hit AGREE--> FINISH with default settings that don't restrict/monitor anything.

by mfer 5y ago

zelon88 5y ago

I think it should be the parents responsibility. If we let social media determine what is acceptable for all children it is guaranteed that the bar will be too low for many and too high for many others. Parents should be the final say in what is right for their kids. Kids develop at vastly varying rates. Not absolving themselves of liability implies that they are making decisions in a vacuum that parents should be making themselves. But like you said, most parents don't understand the risks. That's why social media should be forced to perform studies on the risks associated with their products and make those studies public. Then, when you use a device for the first time it should show you in plain language - like a new user signing into Windows ("Hi, we're getting everything ready for you...") - where to find that information. When a single change of code can instantly impact millions of children (or anyone really) the stakes for the public are high enough that the public deserves transparency. If nothing else to ensure that Instagram is making decisions backed by due diligence.

mfer 5y ago
> I think it should be the parents responsibility. Parents and corps aren't the only ones in this conversation. There is also governments. Should we have let parents decide if kids smoking was ok or not? Some governments stepped in and required labels be placed on packages and set age limits. I'm not saying that the way smoking was handled was right or wrong. I'm using it to illustrate that there are other angles and players. > That's why social media should be forced to perform studies on the risks associated with their products and make those studies public. One of the things I've found is that studies performed by an organization on their stuff tend to show it in a much better light than independent studies. When there is a financial interest people tend to contort things to improve on their financial interest. I don't want to see studies from them. I want independent studies with researchers who are allowed to get enough data to perform them. > Parents should be the final say in what is right for their kids. What happens when you have uninformed parents? I'm reminded that these tech companies are using strategies meant to hide the knowledge of what they're doing from the people they're doing it to. How do you handle that part of the equation?
- zelon88 5y ago
  > What happens when you have uninformed parents? I'm reminded that these tech companies are using strategies meant to hide the knowledge of what they're doing from the people they're doing it to. How do you handle that part of the equation? I think if we had enough transparency we would get less uninformed parents. We force slot machine manufacturers to put addiction warnings on their machines, and only a couple hundred people use one of those per day. Facebook has no warning labels and they use the same techniques. It is no secret today that gambling is dangerous and addicting.
  - mfer 5y ago
    To have warnings requires government intervention. It's not just a thing that involves parents, kids, and companies.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Tangent: incidentally, we don't force addiction warnings on games in the arcades, even though those machines use many of the same techniques and actively misrepresent themselves as games of skill, while being games of chance. This is one of those open secrets that pisses me off to no end.

Spooky23 5y ago

Agreed. Facebook, et al is essentially pushing a casino / Skinner box at my kids that evolves every day. My change in thought happened when I found out that Facebook/YouTube was pushing pro-eating disorder material to a teenage relative and my 6 year old was getting pulled into weird videos that had a visible impact on his behavior. I don’t work for Facebook and frankly don’t have the energy to stay up on the latest innovations for stealing my kids attention at any cost. The only responsible choice that I can make as a parent is to not use it, but that obviously creates a forbidden fruit situation where I have to balance what I believe against peer pressure and other factors to avoid a worse outcome. Avoidance also means that the great material on these platforms is walled off. Running a cesspool is too profitable for self-reform, something needs to change the way this business works.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> It's about shifting legal responsibility so they can keep doing what they do. Minors are the legal responsibility of parents. However I get your point. No, I don't think its actually that. I think its much worse than that. I think they thought it might be a good safe idea. If I was being uncharitable I'd say they looked at tiktok hoovering up the next cohort of instagram users and thought, we can provide a safe way to do that and convert them onto our platform. All the problems we've had with instagram, facebook and friends reunited are going to pop up on tiktok, but all at the same time and for a younger, less well equipped generation.

canada_dry 5y ago

> punting responsibility onto parents The end result will be T&Cs that few parents will read, and they will simply hit AGREE--> FINISH with default settings that don't restrict/monitor anything.