4 ms·

Social media is not that dissimilar to sex and drugs. At some point we just have to acknowledge that young teenagers are going to use it no matter what. So may

Social media is not that dissimilar to sex and drugs. At some point we just have to acknowledge that young teenagers are going to use it no matter what. So maybe we should focus more on education and harm prevention as opposed to trying to ban it. Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't.

hackerlight 3y ago
> At some point we just have to acknowledge that young teenagers are going to use it no matter what. We haven't tried to ban it for kids. Social media is a network effect. Currently kids have to go on if they don't want to get outcasted. But if you eliminate the network there isn't the same pull factor.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  No thank you. It was hard enough growing up in a Catholic household with a firewall. My career in remote tech is despite the obstacles placed in my way, not because of them. I would never support similarly gimping children in an increasingly online world. Banning kids from congregating on the internet is a reprehensible idea.
  - bartread 3y ago
    I think the debate is a little more nuanced than this. Any action at scale in this area will deliver both benefits and downsides. What we need to do is look at what action will deliver the greatest net benefit to the most young people. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not a fan of broad brush action in general, but if it delivers that net benefit I’d be supportive. This is not to invalidate your own experience - it sounds awful - but we can’t make policy decisions at this scale based only on individual experiences. Personally I dread the impact that social media might have on our daughters as they move on to secondary school.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      To reverse that, we can't make policy decisions which negatively impact the basic human rights of individuals.
      - bartread 3y ago
        Except that the reality is that we can and do, and we do it all the time. Here’s an example of an institution that as a matter of both habit and statute does so consistently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Healt.... Note that I’m not suggesting NICE is always right, but they do at least try to make decisions that bring optimal benefits to the largest possible group within the overall population to which they have a duty of care. Making decisions at scale is always hard, and sometimes outright terrible, because some people always lose out. Nobody likes this or thinks it’s anything other than horrible but, going back to social media, if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make. Of course, it’s not that simple, and I don’t really know where the net benefit lies, but that’s what we have to figure out.
        soulofmischief 3y ago
        When I say "we can't", I mean "we can't ethically" or "I do not support a government that". > if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make. Not me, and I'd appreciate it if you don't attempt to parent my children for me.
        bartread 3y ago
        I'm not trying to parent your children for you. Why would you think that? I'm looking out for the welfare of my own. Are you looking for a perfect solution?
        3y ago
- bartread 3y ago
  I’m not usually a fan of broad brush solutions, and I can imagine there are plenty of special interest arguments against, but I sense the net benefit of blanket banning under-18s from social media may be greater than any harm caused.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    I wouldn't say under-18. Start with under-14 or under-15.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      Back in my own childhood I would be strictly against this idea. But the internet I grew up with is far different than the internet of today. It really is nearly impossible nowadays for clueless children to avoid getting sucked into some endless loop of being manipulated by people, social networks, or even the websites themselves.
  - doktrin 3y ago
    I don't see how such a "ban" could be effective. If you boot all minors from current social media platforms, they'll more than likely just migrate to an alternative solution - an alternative which will be less accountable and more opaque than the current ecosystem.
    - bartread 3y ago
      Possibly, but that alternative would have to fall outside the bounds of the relevant legislation for it to be something they could migrate to. Young people have always congregated and that, in itself, isn't a bad thing (quite the opposite - they absolutely need to socialise). The issue we have is that current social media is a far too effective vector for bullying, exacerbating mental health issues and, of course, discovery and sharing of abusive material. Those are some of the problems we need to solve for. As I say, I sense there may be a net benefit to a ban for younger people, but I could be mistaken - for example, there could simply be greater restrictions or regulation of social media use by young people that would make it safer/better - and would welcome evidence that proved me wrong.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
soulofmischief 3y ago
> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. Some states are already moving in this direction. However, it is a firmly unconstitutional approach. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.
- theGnuMe 3y ago
  Why is it unconstitutional?
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      Nothing in there prohibits a national eID.
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        Exactly. Nothing in there prohibits electronic anything. It's talking about people. If you so choose, you can still do everything in person. The fact that computers currently make it easier and it's about to get harder doesn't change the fact that computers are entirely irrelevant.
        soulofmischief 3y ago
        The key insight is that the government should never be allowed to mediate the interactions I have with other humans on platforms which allow these interactions, and should never be allowed to mandate a platform to adopt policies which prohibit such activity. If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.
joshspankit 3y ago
> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. To your point; we’ve been dealing with a variation of this for decades (maybe even millennia?). The core issue is that kids have more time and energy than any parent, and they have inquisitive problem-solving minds motivated by an intense-to-them need for social connection. Parental control software: Bypassed Firewalls and DNS blocks: Bypassed Parental locks on modern phones: Bypassed “Are you over 18?” prompts: irrelevant Asking for driver’s license? Good luck. Are lawmakers going to commit to the inevitable cat and mouse game that starts with kids doing AI forgeries of licenses?

hackerlight 3y ago

> At some point we just have to acknowledge that young teenagers are going to use it no matter what. We haven't tried to ban it for kids. Social media is a network effect. Currently kids have to go on if they don't want to get outcasted. But if you eliminate the network there isn't the same pull factor.

soulofmischief 3y ago
No thank you. It was hard enough growing up in a Catholic household with a firewall. My career in remote tech is despite the obstacles placed in my way, not because of them. I would never support similarly gimping children in an increasingly online world. Banning kids from congregating on the internet is a reprehensible idea.
- bartread 3y ago
  I think the debate is a little more nuanced than this. Any action at scale in this area will deliver both benefits and downsides. What we need to do is look at what action will deliver the greatest net benefit to the most young people. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not a fan of broad brush action in general, but if it delivers that net benefit I’d be supportive. This is not to invalidate your own experience - it sounds awful - but we can’t make policy decisions at this scale based only on individual experiences. Personally I dread the impact that social media might have on our daughters as they move on to secondary school.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    To reverse that, we can't make policy decisions which negatively impact the basic human rights of individuals.
    - bartread 3y ago
      Except that the reality is that we can and do, and we do it all the time. Here’s an example of an institution that as a matter of both habit and statute does so consistently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Healt.... Note that I’m not suggesting NICE is always right, but they do at least try to make decisions that bring optimal benefits to the largest possible group within the overall population to which they have a duty of care. Making decisions at scale is always hard, and sometimes outright terrible, because some people always lose out. Nobody likes this or thinks it’s anything other than horrible but, going back to social media, if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make. Of course, it’s not that simple, and I don’t really know where the net benefit lies, but that’s what we have to figure out.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        When I say "we can't", I mean "we can't ethically" or "I do not support a government that". > if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make. Not me, and I'd appreciate it if you don't attempt to parent my children for me.
        bartread 3y ago
        I'm not trying to parent your children for you. Why would you think that? I'm looking out for the welfare of my own. Are you looking for a perfect solution?
        3y ago
bartread 3y ago
I’m not usually a fan of broad brush solutions, and I can imagine there are plenty of special interest arguments against, but I sense the net benefit of blanket banning under-18s from social media may be greater than any harm caused.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  I wouldn't say under-18. Start with under-14 or under-15.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    Back in my own childhood I would be strictly against this idea. But the internet I grew up with is far different than the internet of today. It really is nearly impossible nowadays for clueless children to avoid getting sucked into some endless loop of being manipulated by people, social networks, or even the websites themselves.
- doktrin 3y ago
  I don't see how such a "ban" could be effective. If you boot all minors from current social media platforms, they'll more than likely just migrate to an alternative solution - an alternative which will be less accountable and more opaque than the current ecosystem.
  - bartread 3y ago
    Possibly, but that alternative would have to fall outside the bounds of the relevant legislation for it to be something they could migrate to. Young people have always congregated and that, in itself, isn't a bad thing (quite the opposite - they absolutely need to socialise). The issue we have is that current social media is a far too effective vector for bullying, exacerbating mental health issues and, of course, discovery and sharing of abusive material. Those are some of the problems we need to solve for. As I say, I sense there may be a net benefit to a ban for younger people, but I could be mistaken - for example, there could simply be greater restrictions or regulation of social media use by young people that would make it safer/better - and would welcome evidence that proved me wrong.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

soulofmischief 3y ago

> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. Some states are already moving in this direction. However, it is a firmly unconstitutional approach. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.

theGnuMe 3y ago
Why is it unconstitutional?
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  - INTPenis 3y ago
    Nothing in there prohibits a national eID.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      Exactly. Nothing in there prohibits electronic anything. It's talking about people. If you so choose, you can still do everything in person. The fact that computers currently make it easier and it's about to get harder doesn't change the fact that computers are entirely irrelevant.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        The key insight is that the government should never be allowed to mediate the interactions I have with other humans on platforms which allow these interactions, and should never be allowed to mandate a platform to adopt policies which prohibit such activity. If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.

joshspankit 3y ago

> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. To your point; we’ve been dealing with a variation of this for decades (maybe even millennia?). The core issue is that kids have more time and energy than any parent, and they have inquisitive problem-solving minds motivated by an intense-to-them need for social connection. Parental control software: Bypassed Firewalls and DNS blocks: Bypassed Parental locks on modern phones: Bypassed “Are you over 18?” prompts: irrelevant Asking for driver’s license? Good luck. Are lawmakers going to commit to the inevitable cat and mouse game that starts with kids doing AI forgeries of licenses?