4 ms·

Our descendants will look back on us allowing children access to unadulterated social media the way we look back on smoking.

toolz 5y ago
Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? Our descendants will create better platforms that can allow users to better filter for their emotional needs and they'll likely have better tools to understand their own emotions.
- stirfish 5y ago
  I don't think of social media - especially casual image sharing sites - as being particularly information-rich.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? All the time, every day, forever? Not sure what society you're living in but here in the western world the push for censorship is constant.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? The trick social media companies use is convincing people that all they're doing is giving people access to "information". They are not; they're just creating addiction machines. It should be self evident that wikipedia or a minimalist blog with a comment box is in an entirely different solar system from facebook's algorithm that keeps track of how long you scroll and then shows you something you're likely to interact with right before you're supposed to close the app, manipulating your emotions to keep you "engaged" longer. >Our descendants will create better platforms that can allow users to better filter for their emotional needs and they'll likely have better tools to understand their own emotions. We already have them. My kids won't be able to access the internet until they figure out how to navigate the command line. In the beginning ...
  - javajosh 5y ago
    First, nice Neal Stephenson reference, second, you're right to challenge the notion that banning social media is equivalent to banning information. It's about time-scale. I figure my kids can and should read anything they want in book form. But they cannot and should not see anything they want from the internet. The time-scale of the internet is too short, the quality of information (particularly commentary) is very poor, the opportunity to "engage" is too distracting. I'm not convinced anyone is really able to handle the onslaught of the internet - I am certain that children are not.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      Beautifully put. Time-scale is what we're kind of dancing around when we talk about information consumption. When I was in high school, it was easy to sit, alone, with my calculus text book and devour everything free of distractions. I can't imagine what it's like to try to learn something like that in today's environment, where your time is a zero-sum game of attention manipulation. Now, I'm not saying we should all become luddites or something, and make our kids start from scratch with technology ... but ... there is at least some wisdom in that perspective. I do wonder if my (and by the looks of it some others' here) recent hostility to technology is because I'm a millennial, so my experiences with it straddle the analog-to-digital transformation and I can actually remember how things used to be.
- twayt 5y ago
  It does give you more access to information but also allows young impressionable brains to be influenced in a negative way by misguided "influencers". The distribution channel isn't the main issue, it is that the role of a parent is more complicated than it ever was and parents are not keeping up. In the past you had to ensure that your kid doesn't pick up negative influences from the kids around them. Today you need to be more proactive in ensuring that they don't pick up negative influences from the multitudes of misguided people unrestricted by geography who's half-formed views are propagated as long as they are interesting and make people feel good about themselves in the short term.
- solenoidalslide 5y ago
  Swap "information" with "ML-optimized and personalized dopamine dispenser". At what age would it be appropriate to own such a device?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Society has nearly always decided that limiting access to information to children is ideal. Most dont let young children have access to pornography and extremely violent content for example. Historically, this access has been limited both by parents and social groups. I wouldn't want to rely on my toddlers cognitive tools to digest and defend against a high resolution video of someone being dismembered and beheaded alive.
armchairhacker 5y ago
I don’t think limiting information is the solution at least among older teens/young adults. I think people have a right to know the world’s ugly, harsh facts and crazy opinions. Not knowing something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I think the solution is to remind them of all the good facts and reasonable opinions. Warn about particularly bad stuff like gore (and do block this content from children until they reach young adulthood). And most importantly, teach them how to better manage their thoughts and emotions (techniques from therapy), so they can learn about bad stuff without being hurt or biased from it. Then again, this take is from my own ignorance and personality. Maybe I haven’t been exposed to the real ugly stuff, or maybe I’m better at not reacting to stuff emotionally than others. But the main issue with restricting harsh information is, not knowing something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
- tgv 5y ago
  > I think people have a right to know the world’s ugly, harsh facts and crazy opinions. Newspapers bring you that, once per day. And social media brings a lot more than that.
  - armchairhacker 5y ago
    News brings you the ugly but it doesn’t teach you how to cope. Actually it does the exact opposite and tries to elicit emotional response. The news also covers the negative world events much more than the positive ones. People need to learn that the news is biased and uses fallacies like the slippery slope to make harsh reality sound even harsh than it actually is.
- erddfre3423 5y ago
  I don't think the problem is necessarily knowing what kind of place the world is, but being constantly reminded by it. I believe social media would be harmful even if it was full of happy news, simply because it provides constant distraction which isn't natural for our brains. Also, often young people compare their lives to unrealistic images portrayed through social media influencers, and get depressed when their life seems worse. So even "positive" content can be a source of depression.
tjpnz 5y ago
I won't be letting my kids near that shit.
teaearlgrey_hot 5y ago

toolz 5y ago

Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? Our descendants will create better platforms that can allow users to better filter for their emotional needs and they'll likely have better tools to understand their own emotions.

stirfish 5y ago
I don't think of social media - especially casual image sharing sites - as being particularly information-rich.
LAC-Tech 5y ago
Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? All the time, every day, forever? Not sure what society you're living in but here in the western world the push for censorship is constant.
remarkEon 5y ago
>Strongly disagree, when has society ever decided less access to information is ideal? The trick social media companies use is convincing people that all they're doing is giving people access to "information". They are not; they're just creating addiction machines. It should be self evident that wikipedia or a minimalist blog with a comment box is in an entirely different solar system from facebook's algorithm that keeps track of how long you scroll and then shows you something you're likely to interact with right before you're supposed to close the app, manipulating your emotions to keep you "engaged" longer. >Our descendants will create better platforms that can allow users to better filter for their emotional needs and they'll likely have better tools to understand their own emotions. We already have them. My kids won't be able to access the internet until they figure out how to navigate the command line. In the beginning ...
- javajosh 5y ago
  First, nice Neal Stephenson reference, second, you're right to challenge the notion that banning social media is equivalent to banning information. It's about time-scale. I figure my kids can and should read anything they want in book form. But they cannot and should not see anything they want from the internet. The time-scale of the internet is too short, the quality of information (particularly commentary) is very poor, the opportunity to "engage" is too distracting. I'm not convinced anyone is really able to handle the onslaught of the internet - I am certain that children are not.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Beautifully put. Time-scale is what we're kind of dancing around when we talk about information consumption. When I was in high school, it was easy to sit, alone, with my calculus text book and devour everything free of distractions. I can't imagine what it's like to try to learn something like that in today's environment, where your time is a zero-sum game of attention manipulation. Now, I'm not saying we should all become luddites or something, and make our kids start from scratch with technology ... but ... there is at least some wisdom in that perspective. I do wonder if my (and by the looks of it some others' here) recent hostility to technology is because I'm a millennial, so my experiences with it straddle the analog-to-digital transformation and I can actually remember how things used to be.
twayt 5y ago
It does give you more access to information but also allows young impressionable brains to be influenced in a negative way by misguided "influencers". The distribution channel isn't the main issue, it is that the role of a parent is more complicated than it ever was and parents are not keeping up. In the past you had to ensure that your kid doesn't pick up negative influences from the kids around them. Today you need to be more proactive in ensuring that they don't pick up negative influences from the multitudes of misguided people unrestricted by geography who's half-formed views are propagated as long as they are interesting and make people feel good about themselves in the short term.
solenoidalslide 5y ago
Swap "information" with "ML-optimized and personalized dopamine dispenser". At what age would it be appropriate to own such a device?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Society has nearly always decided that limiting access to information to children is ideal. Most dont let young children have access to pornography and extremely violent content for example. Historically, this access has been limited both by parents and social groups. I wouldn't want to rely on my toddlers cognitive tools to digest and defend against a high resolution video of someone being dismembered and beheaded alive.

armchairhacker 5y ago

I don’t think limiting information is the solution at least among older teens/young adults. I think people have a right to know the world’s ugly, harsh facts and crazy opinions. Not knowing something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I think the solution is to remind them of all the good facts and reasonable opinions. Warn about particularly bad stuff like gore (and do block this content from children until they reach young adulthood). And most importantly, teach them how to better manage their thoughts and emotions (techniques from therapy), so they can learn about bad stuff without being hurt or biased from it. Then again, this take is from my own ignorance and personality. Maybe I haven’t been exposed to the real ugly stuff, or maybe I’m better at not reacting to stuff emotionally than others. But the main issue with restricting harsh information is, not knowing something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

tgv 5y ago
> I think people have a right to know the world’s ugly, harsh facts and crazy opinions. Newspapers bring you that, once per day. And social media brings a lot more than that.
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  News brings you the ugly but it doesn’t teach you how to cope. Actually it does the exact opposite and tries to elicit emotional response. The news also covers the negative world events much more than the positive ones. People need to learn that the news is biased and uses fallacies like the slippery slope to make harsh reality sound even harsh than it actually is.
erddfre3423 5y ago
I don't think the problem is necessarily knowing what kind of place the world is, but being constantly reminded by it. I believe social media would be harmful even if it was full of happy news, simply because it provides constant distraction which isn't natural for our brains. Also, often young people compare their lives to unrealistic images portrayed through social media influencers, and get depressed when their life seems worse. So even "positive" content can be a source of depression.

tjpnz 5y ago

I won't be letting my kids near that shit.

teaearlgrey_hot 5y ago