20 ms·

The author had it right in the first paragraph. In the 90s version of this hysteria, Congress passed a law that would have prevented access to education medical

• hackerlight 3y ago
  > if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. Relevant bit from the essay: "But much of my book is about the collective action traps that entire communities of adolescents fall into when they move their social lives onto these platforms, such that it becomes costly to abstain. It is at that point that collective mental health declines most sharply, and the individuals who try to quit find that they are socially isolated. The skeptics do not consider the ways that these network or group-level effects may obscure individual-level effects, and may be much larger than the individual-level effects."
  • lvoudour 3y ago
    An excellent point. Abstention = social isolation, which for young people is far worse than exposure. Restricting your children's access is not an option (lets' be real, they'll find a way to circumvent your efforts anyway) and moving the burden of restriction from society to individuals is not fair. So as a society do we let unrestrained exposure or do we take collective action? I lean on the second option, but I'm not sure what this action might be. I'm on the internet ~30 years, I loved the total anarchy of the early web, the unrestrained access to all kinds of information - good, bad and evil. It's very hard for me to get behind heavy-handed regulation. But honestly, I feel oversaturated by the modern cataclysm of information. My bullshit filters are clogged, my defense mechanisms are failing to the point I let information flow through me without an ounce of critical thinking. I can't imagine what the effect is on young untrained minds.
    • GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      If they find a workaround, they will still be unable to sit there around the clock, which is decent reduction of consumption. Also there won't be many, just like smoking schoolkids, so no social pressure. You can ban it completely or you can have your lovely bookface 1 hour per day, why not, it's dangerous when they spend there 10 hours per day.
    • bigstrat2003 3y ago
      > Abstention = social isolation, which for young people is far worse than exposure. Restricting your children's access is not an option... "Everybody else is doing it" has never been, and still is not, a valid reason for anything. If other parents choose to let their kids ingest mental poison, that does not mean that one should allow their children to do the same. Abstention is not only an option, it is something which absolutely should be enforced by any parent who cares about their child's well being.
      • lvoudour 3y ago
        I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about adolescents (as is the quoted paragraph). I strongly believe that an adolescent's well being is tightly coupled with social interactions. If a restriction is not protecting them from life threatening situations, then alienating them from their peers is probably worse.
  • GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    They meet their society in meat at school every day, how is that isolation? Also ban smartphones at school.
    • ashyaspen 3y ago
      They use their phones when they are with each other, isolating themselves even when they are together. Banning is exactly the argument against this. They are saying we should do that to protect the mental health of teenagers.
• willvarfar 3y ago
  US citizens have the right to free speech. US companies have a qualified right to free speech https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speech-for-corporations.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec... How about AI? If it is an algorithm that is talking to you, does it have the right to do all the things that are protected by 'free speech'? And does it matter if the AI is commercial, or a home hobby project effort?
  • golergka 3y ago
    Somebody has bought or rented the computer that this AI runs on, somebody has launched it as a piece of code or an API call. This somebody is using his right to free speech, AI is just a tool.
    • willvarfar 3y ago
      Can you clarify, is your "somebody" a person or a company?
      • latency-guy2 3y ago
        > is your "somebody" a person or a company? What is the explicit difference between 1 person and 10 persons when it comes to their rights? Explicit, I want to know what rights we lose as soon as "I" transforms into "we".
        • Kbelicius 3y ago
          > What is the explicit difference between 1 person and 10 persons when it comes to their rights? None. > Explicit, I want to know what rights we lose as soon as "I" transforms into "we". In this case a company isn't "we". It is usually the owner.
          • latency-guy2 3y ago
            > > What is the explicit difference between 1 person and 10 persons when it comes to their rights? > None. > > Explicit, I want to know what rights we lose as soon as "I" transforms into "we". > In this case a company isn't "we". It is usually the owner. Awesome, I'm glad that rights do not change between 1 to 1 billion, let's not assert that these rights disappear in conditions that make no difference in quality.
• NoPicklez 3y ago
  Everyone has the ability to exercise personal accountability for how much they gamble, smoke, eat junk food, play video games, use social media etc. However, if these consumer products become so addictive, or are designed to be so engaging and as a result people are by and large struggling to exercise personal accountability and it is causing adverse health outcomes. Then the government should step in, either should forceful action or through promoting healthier alternatives or shining a light on its damaging effects.
  • cdogl 3y ago
    The simply binary of government or individual choice eliminates the middle ground where almost all change happens: the collective aggregate result of cultural change within the community. We don’t have to pick one extreme to change the world!
    • Barrin92 3y ago
      >the middle ground where almost all change happens: the collective aggregate result of cultural change happened, past tense. That cultural layer, to a large extent enforced by various religious traditions both in the literal and civic sense, sometimes for better or worse is pretty much gone. Nowadays it largely is a binary question of legal action on the one hand or individual choice on the other. If you tell people they need to make change within their community 90% are going to ask you, what community? Community with a capital C where people collectively enforce binding rules, rather than occasionally go bowling isn't much of a thing.
      • randomdata 3y ago
        Community need not be tight for change to occur. A random stranger calling you out on your shit is just as effective. Maybe even more effective as it doesn't always hit so hard when someone you are comfortable with says it.
    • NoPicklez 3y ago
      I never said it was binary, but we’re talking about governments stepping in to help. The government cannot and will have the capacity to come in and solely fix the problem. Collective change is required and that could include the help of Government, but currently the Government isn’t doing anything, which is the premise of this post. Should they step in and if so, to what degree and how much can they really do.
• qwery 3y ago
  > But these are communications platforms. While technically true, this is a gross misrepresentation. Calling these sites and apps "communications platforms" makes them sound like they're just a mail service or a telephone. This is akin to referring to a casino as "the town square". > That's a freedom you and everyone else can take advantage of also. This "can" is only true in a strict legal sense, of course.
  • ryandrake 3y ago
    They’re communication platforms in only a very roundabout sense: like a newspaper’s “Letters to the Editor” section, but quicker. You send your message to Facebook, it decides (algorithmically, not through human editors) whether or not to publish it and to whom, and then Facebook sends that message onward.
  • z3c0 3y ago
    I see the "town square" analogy used a lot, but it's ignoring the actual purpose: it's an advertising platform, run by advertisers for advertisers. The presumed function of communication (something it certainly was started for) is purely for keeping the attention of users to sell to advertisers. As a town square, it's more akin to Times Square.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      I dislike the town square analogy as well. What town square requires membership and provides anonymity? What town square do people routinely share dissenting opinions? The fact people feel free enough to routinely share dissent on these platforms shows that it's the opposite of a town square. The very act of sharing dissent in the town square used to be provocative in itself. What's provocative about grieving on Twitter? The town square analogy couldn't be further from reality.
• smokel 3y ago
  > then don't use them This assumes that humans are rational agents. I think that drug addiction, wars in Israel and Ukraine, conspiracy theorists, and free-climbers sufficiently prove that this is not the case. If only life were so easy, we would not even need to have this discussion.
  • zigman1 3y ago
    It's the country's role or more specifically, the role of education to equip citizens with skills that will help them navigate virtual, deceiving and fake internet space.
    • smokel 3y ago
      No, it's not. Where does it say so?
      • zigman1 3y ago
        Educational goals focus on broader set of skills and competences including critical and logical thinking. You can find this in most national and federal documents. That's because the education in its traditional sense is a country investing in its own working force. Normally, a country would want a healthy, educated and productive workforce, but if this is not the case then we have a different problem.
        • smokel 3y ago
          Sure, but there are so many skills to focus on, that one can hardly expect people to stay off drugs because one lesson was spent on how bad it is. Companies are constantly inventing new ways to get people hooked on their platforms (or products), and it's a pretty tough race for teachers. Note also the difference in salaries for high school teachers and developers at Meta.
          • zigman1 3y ago
            The point is not to have a one shitty lesson on it, probably by someone who doesn't even know what cookies are. The point is, that alongside learning math, biology and history, you should also come out of educational system emotionally mature and equipped with skills to survive in modern world. Not all skills are acquired through a deliberate lesson, the role of school is not only to teach but to upbring a generation(s). If Huberman can teach you a basics of nutrition so can a formal educational process. The problem with relying on youtube educators is then that it is down to luck if someone will come across it.
• jajko 3y ago
  You dont have kids, do you. Seeing them being pushed out of entire school community due to higher principles is heartbreaking to say at least, this is place from which teen suicides come from. Parents usually cave in the pressure. I would go and even claim I would ban all current social media platforms below 18. Ther are simply not enough protections, consistently, its place ripe for abuse and tons abuse is happening every day as we speak. I know we will keep our own kids off this for as long as possible, but eventually harm from absence will be greater. Parents shouldnt be choosing lesser evil like that, just that some meta employees can cash half a million and think what a great addition to mankind they are, when reality is closer to definition of cancer.
  • zigman1 3y ago
    > I would ban all current social media platforms below 18 Just like porn? Do you think kids would find a way around it?
    • non-chalad 3y ago
      Not if we implement mandatory ID internet use and social tracking system. We could introduce it with Elmo, Kermit, and Fozzie, and call it "Sesame Credit"… waka waka!
    • Mainan_Tagonist 3y ago
      some would, obviously, but only those that really wanted to, just as some end up buying cigarettes or alcohol. But that would be a fraction of what it is now
    • bsder 3y ago
      There's a huge difference between actively seeking something vs having it shoved down your throat. The biggest problem with the social media systems is that they are normalized. Lots of school and government stuff only comes out on Xitter or Facebook. That's horrible. It's like dealing with a car salesman. If you engage, you've already lost as you have sooooo much less experience than who you are fighting against.
  • deleted 3y ago
• steeve 3y ago
  One could make that exact argument of cigarettes too. And see why it doesn't work in the real world.
  • kevingadd 3y ago
    Cigarettes aren't speech. I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise.
    • boxed 3y ago
      No, but there the issue is bodily autonomy. Which arguably is much more important a right than free speech.
      • suslik 3y ago
        Is bodily autonomy a recognized right in any sense? Is there a society that actually respects the right to bodily autonomy legally or in practice - meaning, using any drugs at will, the right to suicide, to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal, and so on? I don't think there is, and nobody is pushing for it.
        • defrost 3y ago
          The Okapa District, pre missionary, pre kiaps .. you were good to go until the mid 1950s at least .. and then colonizers spread their values. > to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal They had standards though, you'd have to work to gain the respect for anyone to want to eat you as a mortuary ritual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people
        • boxed 3y ago
          There's two parts though: 1. the right to not have someone else do stuff to your body 2. your right to do anything to it Number 1 is pretty well established. Number 2 less so, and I think that comes down to us as a society noticing that many people can't be trusted with full access here. Ask any clean addict and they will tell you what a colossal mistake it was to start using the drug in the first place. The regulation of what you can do with your own body is, in my opinion, a regulation to protect future you from present you. Because we all know what the present you has worse impulse control and judgement than future you would like.
• thefz 3y ago
  > And just like the Supreme Court wrote 30 years ago, the answer is the same today: if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. Restrict your children's access to these platforms. 100% my reply to any critic of teenage social media, but the parents' stance is always "but then my kid is going to FOMO and feel left out".
  • damsalor 3y ago
    The cure to fomo is not participation
    • thefz 3y ago
      That is what I am saying but apparently HN is on a bad day today.
• newzisforsukas 3y ago
  > Being exposed to shit on the internet teaches you there's bullshit on the internet, and not to believe everything you see Maybe it taught you that, but there are plenty of people that grow up on the Internet who do not learn these lessons. Take a look at any conspiracy message board, group, etc. Akin to saying something like, "let it happen, that'll teach 'em" Unfortunately, not everything works itself out.
• thegrim000 3y ago
  It's funny .. earlier today there was a front page HN post about the federal government mandating safer circular saws. It seemed like the majority of users in the thread were in favor of the federal government mandating technology changes to prevent harm from being done to the population. Now for this issue, there's harm being done to children, and the majority of users in the thread seem to be against government intervention; you say: "well if you don't like it, if you think it's negative, just don't use it, don't let your kids use it". Kind of a random parallel to draw between the two stories, but it's funny the same logic doesn't seem to apply in both cases. Why wasn't for circular saws the response "if you think they're dangerous, don't use them" or "just keep your kids away from them"?
  • ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
    While both paternalism. Requiring safety features on a saw does not restrict free speech. It's more akin to seatbelt laws. It's also made to protect everyone who uses a table saw and not just children. Imo, I do think social media needs to be reeled in by policy. But I can see why it makes people uncomfortable and why there is a difference with the saw.
    • Ekaros 3y ago
      I wonder how many would be for seatbelt laws if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car.
      • throwaway2037 3y ago
        > if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car Here is the problem: They didn't. So what is your point?
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
      • red_admiral 3y ago
        I think this confuses cause and effect. Seatbelts are brought up so often precisely because they are an intervention with a huge benefit-to-cost ratio. Seatbelt laws were made long after the fact - seat belts for cars started to appear in the 1950s, with the common three-point variant in 1955; the first seatbelt law appeared in 1970 (in Australia). The US started introducing seatbelt laws for cars in the 1980s (though as far as I know, some organizations/insurers required them earlier for employees driving for business).
• madsbuch 3y ago
  you have many ways you can solve the issues without ristricting free speach. you can ristrict how you can monitize a product - I think the problem would be much smaller if you have to pay a price congruent to the value you get. Only a few people would pay for Facebook. you can make the platforms resposinsible for what is published on them and enforce that. they would never scale this much. > And just like the Supreme Court wrote 30 years ago, the answer is the same today: if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. We have already collectively agreed that this is not an argument. That is why there are agencies like the FDA, etc.
• olibhel 3y ago
  In my country, India, these platforms are used less for free speech and more for brainwashing and spreading hate and misinformation. Most of these posts are in Hindi, a major language around here, and call for all kinds of hate such as suppression of a specific religion, call for genocide, invading and acquiring neighboring countries etc. I've tried reporting such posts multiple times but hate filled posts are neither removed, nor restricted. If a platform cannot provide adequate moderation, it should stop operating in my country and be held responsible for providing a platform for spreading hate pseudo-anonmously.
  • satvikpendem 3y ago
    How is this example any different than what the parent has said? If people feel these platforms are negatively impacting them, they should stop using them. Or do you believe others or the government has a right to disallow what people want to watch via their own choices? You may call it brainwashing but others may disagree.
    • Fricken 3y ago
      Hate speech and incitements to violence against the Rohingya precipitated for years on Facebook. Deleting the app would not have saved the Rohingya from getting genocided.
    • graemep 3y ago
      > If people feel these platforms are negatively impacting them, they should stop using them. The problem is how to stop the mob attacking you from using them. An American equivalent might be if social media existed a 100 years ago and was being used to encourage lynchings. Yes, it really is that bad in some places. The problem is that FB does moderate things relevant to the US but ignores the rest of the world. They will remove white supremacist material in the US, but not the equivalent elsewhere.
      • satvikpendem 3y ago
        The solution is in the problem, network effects. If everyone stopped using them due to deleterious effects, the problem is would solve itself.
• brylie 3y ago
  Note that the reforms suggested by the author are primarily normative, not legislative: """ More specifically, we’d try to implement these four norms as widely as possible: 1. No smartphones before high school (as a norm, not a law; parents can just give younger kids flip phones, basic phones, or phone watches). 2. No social media before 16 (as a norm, but one that would be much more effective if supported by laws such as the proposed update to COPPA, the Kids Online Safety Act, state-level age-appropriate design codes, and new social media bills like the bipartisan Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, or like the state level bills passed in Utah last year and in Florida last month). 3. Phone-free schools (use phone lockers or Yondr pouches for the whole school day, so that students can pay attention to their teachers and to each other) 4. More independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world. """ https://www.afterbabel.com/i/143412349/what-now https://www.afterbabel.com/i/143412349/what-now
• kstenerud 3y ago
  Why stop there? Why not drop all laws prohibiting sales of tobacco and alcohol to minors? Why should these producers have their right to sell impinged upon by scared parents pushing a bunch of laws through congress? After all, you're free to use or not to use tobacco and alcohol, right? So it should be every kid's choice. In fact, why stop there? Why not allow fentanyl pills at the counter of every convenience store for anyone who wants them? You have the freedom to choose to use or not to use them, so there's no problem, right?
• raziel2p 3y ago
  > if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them It's really not that simple. The products have become so widespread and influential that they change the very culture of our society for the worse. It doesn't matter whether you abstain from using Instagram or not, some of your friends will still be more or less subtly influenced by its existence in your social interactions. There's a nice quote from Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media, which IMO hasn't aged at all in 60 years: "Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the 'content' of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind... The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance."
  • epolanski 3y ago
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I for one deleted all of those platforms and my life is definitely better (I'm way less distracted for once, but the list is longer). What do I care what others do?
    • thinkingemote 3y ago
      Do you live or work with others? Do you have a family or children? Do you interact in meaningful ways with people online? I ask seriously (but no need to reply, this is to aid understanding) as many here on HN do not have all of these so the range of examples may be narrowed for some people. I would however imagine you have some relationships of some kind that you care about. Can you imagine your relationships changing if these others you cared about changed their behaviours? Then extend this imaginary possibility to the relationships of these others. It's a network we are in we are not operating entirely alone. Care of the other is wanting what is good for the other. Sometimes this care is not forcing the other to change, sometimes it's encouraging them to change to benefit them as it benefited you.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• barrysteve 3y ago
  You are not given a choice to opt out. You are included in an ever-increasing dragnet of surveillance. The incentives are set up for it. You either play the sisyphean game of personally blocking a billion dollar company from including you. Or you reach for the long arm of the law. We all know FAANG gave us no choice but to use government ruling.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• unclebucknasty 3y ago
  Arguments of this form are...not good This is a social problem, not a parental one. When you allow for-profit companies (or anyone) to create addictive products that intermediate the social experience of an entire generation, how is a parent supposed to stand against that? It's how kids interact and it defines their entire social experience. Disallowing them access is like sending your kids to school and not allowing them to talk to anyone. We don't allow our kids to have access to alcohol or cigarettes because it's bad for them. How is this any different, when we know it's doing harm at scale? Because "it's speech"? That doesn't hold up. Pornography is also generally considered protected speech, but no one lobbies for unfettered access for kids. Beyond that, restricting social media does not infringe on free speech. That assertion is so obviously wrong on so many levels that it feels silly and pedantic to start itemizing them.
• microtonal 3y ago
  if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. Restrict your children's access to these platforms. If it was only this simple. It's similar to the green bubble problem. Disallowing your kids to use these platforms leads to social isolation. All the other kids are on these platforms and a lot of the talk is about what happened on these platforms (it's similar with games like Roblox for a certain age bracket). Excluding them is also going to teenage mental illness due to exclusion. It's only going to work if all parents would restrict access to these platforms, but that's not going to happen. A lot of parents do not see the issue or do not want to be the first mover.
  • jmilloy 3y ago
    In general, I agree with you, and for the record, I'm in favor of general restrictions or limitations on social media for children. At the same, I want to add that I was not allowed to watch violent cartoons or play violent video games as a kid in the 90s. I felt left out on the playground when I didn't know how to play X-Men or Power Rangers or whatever. But in retrospect it was fine. I'm not sure the social isolation factor in particular is as dire as you claim.
• geocar 3y ago
  > they're advocating for their personal parental decisions to the be decisions of the entire nation. That sounds exactly wrong. I think they want their "personal parental" decisions to not be the decisions of the entire nation, but "personal" and private to themselves and to be free from judgement for wanting this thing. > prevented access to education medical information ... you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. This is pretty important to me: Abusive parents deny their children access to communication platforms. I believe these problems cause problems for the child if the child is already lacking support, but they also represent a way to escape that abuse, so I feel strongly that controlling access to asking-for-help is not okay; This should not be a personal decision good people can make for themselves in their homes for their own kids, because they should be able to understand that "bad" people are actually using laws and rules like this to hurt children. > I don't use any of these products I think you're using one right now: Hacker news is absolutely a communications platform.
• Biologist123 3y ago
  > You may not like FB, IG, TikTok, etc.. I certainly don't care for any of these products. But these are communications platforms. Restricting the right to free speech does have negative consequences You’re conflating these tech platforms with freedom of speech. It might be helpful to the debate to separate out the addictive algorithm and user base from people’s right to think and speak freely.
  • mxkopy 3y ago
    As always the real takeaway is to repeal Citizen’s United
• TacticalCoder 3y ago
  All you wrote doesn't address the elephant in the room: that social media is responsible for an epidemy of teen mental illness (which may or may not be true). If that's true, the suggested measures: no phone before high-school, no social media before 16, phone-free schools, ... do not seem crazy. Kids cannot drink, cannot smoke, cannot have sex with adults, cannot buy firearms, etc. There's a shitload of things kids cannot do: is it really an attack on free speech to have kids not have phones at school and wait until 16 before they can use these mediocre piece of shit social media platforms?
• Teever 3y ago
  > if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them What's the secret to doing that? No really. How do I unsubscribe from the tracking that these platforms do on the web and in my apps? That's the rub! I can't not use (or be used) by these platforms -- no one can!
• nonrandomstring 3y ago
  There are two kinds of freedom [0]. What we are missing in our society today is some essential negative freedoms. Most of us follow J.S. Mill's idea on restricting the influence of the state. See the many comments in this thread decrying government intervention to ban social media. That's a negative freedom, from tyranny. Mostly, we tend to emphasise positive freedoms, freedom to; run a business, share speech, own technology. And that is good. But there are negative freedoms, freedom from; coercion, the scourge of drugs, poverty, censorship. Obviously many positive freedoms can be expressed as negative ones, but how that logic is formulated in law really matters. Now the controversial bit: What we are missing is laws that give people freedom from technology The supposed "choice" to participate is not enough. Like others here I've been a non participant in social media and smartphones. I'm not a Luddite, I'm a computer scientist, but I twigged this problem very early having dealt with addiction and recognising how abuse is mediated by technology. I even wrote a book about it [1]. The problem is, life is made very difficult for those who want to exercise choice. Presently one must live as a second class citizen, in what feels like racism and prejudice of technological snobbery. It is utterly unnecessary. Governments do not need to ban smartphones or social media for kids or for anyone. Making this only about kids is a cop-out. It's leveraging emotional messaging to side-step a bigger problem nobody wants to face - that our whole society is under siege from technology overuse. The more general problem is that we've entered a period of technological over-reach. Kids don't just feel peer pressure to get a smartphone and social media, they live in a society that wants to mandate it. Whether for kids or adults, we need to strongly protect the rights of those who want a less technologically mediated (and encumbered - yes it's not all "convenience") lifestyle. This needs us to maintain plurality of access; No services for government, schools, health available *only* on proprietary and "smart" platforms. Requirement to maintain traditional paper and interpersonal modes. End the insanity of a "cashless society", and "smart societies" that exclude basic human interaction and require and assume smartphones with apps. Strongly protect the rights of parents to choose how their kids use technology, for example in schools, and the attitudes they are raised with. Governments can ensure negative freedoms without just banning stuff. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative... [1] https://digitalvegan.net/ https://digitalvegan.net/
  • 3y ago
• dotancohen 3y ago
  > Restrict your children'ss access to these platforms. I'm the only parent I know that has. And there is much resentment.
  • arkey 3y ago
    Hang on in there mate. If not now, eventually they will be grateful.
• bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  >Restricting the right to free speech does have negative consequences sure, but not everywhere is America and some places seem to manage without slippery-sloping to eternal damnation.
• vermilingua 3y ago
  There is a major difference between banning curse words, medical info, porn etc, and banning social media. The former is banning a type of content, the latter is banning the presentation of content; and it is the presentation that is so harmful. Banning social media optimised for “engagement” at the expense of childrens (and adults) mental health does not remove any content from the internet that could not be expressed in a less toxic way. The finesse is in defining social media in a way more complex than “this list of companies”, and I agree that (likely) no government would choose a definition that does not either have ramifications for free speech or is inadequate.
• ignoramous 3y ago
  > You may not like FB, IG, TikTok, etc.. I certainly don't care for any of these products. But these are communications platforms. Haidt argues these are a leading cause of an ongoing mental illness epidemic. Such a drastic claim deserves a thorough medical review and if true, these platforms must be regulated just like the Tobacco industry was. > those who advocate censorship aren't advocating for freedom... they're advocating for their personal parental decisions to the be decisions of the entire nation. Don't believe freedom of speech / freedom to information overrides the concern of Humanity collectively and progressively going ill, anymore than freedom to self-defense warrants the use of nuclear weapons for personal use. That said, the burden of proof is on Haidt. It isn't uncommon for the older generation to be pessimistic or doomsdaying about the next one.
• rgpenner 3y ago
  > Restricting the right to free speech does have negative consequences... from the development of critical thinking skills; development of technical skills; and limiting of educational information. That's not true. Those things are limited in bubbles like the one of the rationalists as well, so free speech has nothing to do with why people don't develop these things. It's a matter of character; and obedience to a system that establishes the rules that evaluate social, academic and economic status. The Supreme Court was capable of distinguishing between free speech and moron speech but the Party was too convincing. Most of the parents of these kids don't have the required flow of information to handle their kids consumption. And more importantly, their stress levels are too damn high already. Which is also the result of the Party's long term strategy. And if all the other parents say it's normal and the same for their kids, even those parents where it is not the case, which are those that know that's why their kids will be better off while everything collapses (vs making sure their kids are better off while nothing collapses), then there is no way but super-rationality to identify a problem and then there's the willpower to go against the accusations and the time required for researching strategies to deal with the problem while the rest of the world, and school, and one's own life keep working as they always did. If there's bait, the untrained puppy bites. Unless the untrained puppy was trained to bite and puke it out afterwards to find hints at who put the bait right in the path of all those innocent puppies.
• CJefferson 3y ago
  Do you feel the same about legalizing guns, alcohol, cigarettes and heroin for children? I don’t think this is a stupid comparison, as I believe these platforms can be very harmful to children.
• virtualritz 3y ago
  > [...] if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. And have a severally impacted/constrained social life? People with all kinds of hobbies use those platforms to organize group activities. You are either on there or you miss out. I dance tango socially. The tango community, world wide, has settled on FB. Or rather: if you are a dancer, teacher, organizer or DJ, you better be on FB or else you won't know where and when to dance, how to find students, get people to attend your event or get booked. I.e. even if you decided you didn't like FB, you have no choice but to join it and thus help cement their monopoly on how people with this hobby organize themselves.
• namaria 3y ago
  > But these are communications platforms. Restricting the right to free speech does have negative consequences... I take issue with the argument that promoting these social media platforms is tantamount to fostering free speech and denouncing them amounts to eroding this right. No one should expect technology assisted broad cast abilities as part of a doctrine of governments and the State not restricting speech.
• forgetfreeman 3y ago
  Nah. They're advocating for an obvious and well-documented societal harm vector be regulated into a less harmful configuration. This is similar in concept to regulating pollution or disease vectors.
• GeoAtreides 3y ago
  > if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them Just don't smoke! Just don't drink alcohol! Just don't eat junk food! Just go to the gym! > Restrict your children's access to these platforms That's exactly what the article suggests should happen, plus some protections for children enshrined in law. You can find these suggestions at the end of the post, in the section "What now?"
• janpot 3y ago
  > But these are communications platforms. They are mostly advertisement platforms coupled to recommendation engines. The "communication platform" is just side business at this point. And it's being used to wave around as "free speech" when anyone dares to question the detrimental effect of the big mass mind control machine it actually is.
  • thomashop 3y ago
    Any corporately run platform needs to be financed. In this case it seems the advertising model works best. Many platforms have tried subscription options but people prefer to not pay and become the product.
• passwordoops 3y ago
  Sorry to seem glib, but by this same token we should be lift all restrictions we place on youth including smoking, drinking, etc. There's a very clear causal relationship between IG and mental health that goes beyond a moral choice and ideals of free speech
• nkrisc 3y ago
  That’s why we allow children to purchase cigarettes and alcohol and if parents don’t want their kids partaking they can just restrict their access, right?
• callmeal 3y ago
  >You may not like FB, IG, TikTok, etc.. I certainly don't care for any of these products. But these are communications platforms. That may have been true once upon a time (i.e. back in the day when your FB feed was chronological and random posts from unrelated/unwanted crazies would not show up on your device unless a friend forwarded it to you). Now they are psychological manipulators (remember https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... ?) in a quest for advertising dollars at the expense of everything else.
• DarkNova6 3y ago
  This is naive. Not using any of these platforms means that for a great degree you are isolating yourself socially. Big tech already plays a alrge part in how our society is shaped and defending them means they don't have to face their responsibilities. Boiling this down a mere question of "free speech" is a very amerocentric point of view.
• sourcecodeplz 3y ago
  I am into wildlife & nature in general. In my country, public institutions in charge with wildlife & nature have started for some time posting interesting videos, projects and images on facebook. They don't post them anywhere else, if you can believe it. Here, everyone has facebook, from your grandma to your little cousin. My family is spread all over the country and you can keep in touch via text, phone but seeing what they are doing with pictures on facebook is very convenient and helpful. Yes, the older/younger crowd do eat up conspiracies on facebook, sadly. They also don't read news sites, all the news is from facebook and TV maybe (older crowd). Still, you are missing out a lot if you don't have it here. For example like meeting new people even. That "friends of friends" feature is immense. Kind of a social proof that you are normal/not a creep/have friends. In the end it comes down to education. The first 7 years at home are ridiculously important. Then you have primary school for another 8 years, which is almost as important.
  • wepple 3y ago
    The social side of things is very difficult to work around. Public institutions, however, should not be restricting information dispersal to third-party private companies who force even a casual viewer to agree to extensive legal contracts.
• m_fayer 3y ago
  If you think of them as communication platforms, you’re missing a big part of the picture. These systems are the next step in the evolution of media. Media is a complex beast with tentacles into culture and politics and individual society. We’ve known this for a long time. What’s applicable here is Marshal McLuhan, media theory, and heck David Foster Wallace. A lot of this stuff was way ahead of its time, but that time has arrived. “The medium is the message” was a genius insight. Extending it to algorithmic media has all sorts of (disquieting) implications.
• mattacular 3y ago
  > Restrict your children's access to these platforms. You don't have kids do you?
• Moldoteck 3y ago
  is the problem social media or the greedy privacy invading algorithms behind it?
• sidewndr46 3y ago
  That is not really possible. In the US you are required to send your children into public education unless you can afford private education. That public education requires students to use the internet. So you can't just opt out
  • zelphirkalt 3y ago
    Social media is not the Internet, but I think you are raising an important point. Schools are run by uninformed people, who introduce absurd policies, when it comes to prerequisites of usage of online services. It is hard for parents to get to their right of not having to participate in these disservices. I imagine in the US there could be cases, where parents with the required pocket change can sue the school or something, to get it done, but if I think about my own home country, I have my doubts, whether anything would be resolved, before the time of a child in that school is over and in addition to that, there is no accountability for abysmal tech decisions in institutions such as schools. No one is losing their job for forcing children to use social media, unfortunately, even though every adult, especially one to work with children, should know by now, that this cannot be conforming with data protection laws. We simply punish incapable reckless behavior way too rarely.
    • sidewndr46 3y ago
      I think you meant "way too rarely" in your last sentence.
      • zelphirkalt 3y ago
        Thank you, fixed within edit time!
• jononomo 3y ago
  It is important to remember that freedom of speech is more important than having a functioning society of a healthy populace.
  • nmz 3y ago
    sarcasm?
    • jononomo 3y ago
      Not at all. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech is more important than anything else on Earth.
      • nmz 3y ago
        Maybe to an american, to a nation dying of hunger, food is probably more important.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Is speech "free" if you're being manipulated? Someone goes on "social" media to look for political information on an upcoming election and finds themself drawn in to cult-level manipulation of facts all for engagement, is what they say after that truly "free" speech?
• magic_hamster 3y ago
  > if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them. Restrict your children's access to these platforms. That's not going to fix the echo chambers, divisive conspiracy groups, anti semitic posts and generally all the other terrible uses for online platforms that contribute to the destabilization of our society. You can't make a social problem go away by telling individuals "if you don't like this problem please avoid it". Similarly, you can't expect to tell people "the effects of methamphetamine are negative for our entire society so please don't partake". For problems that become a state, country or even world problem, something else is needed.
• unethical_ban 3y ago
  Your argument is convincing if you ignore the studies cited by this author, or the fact these two phenomena (video games and social media) are entirely different and have social as well as individual impact. I also disagree with the notion that limiting certain addictive communications tools from minors is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
• patcon 3y ago
  What are your feelings on production and propagation of "foods" rich in refined sugar? To be clear, I find your thoughts interesting and worth understanding, but if you also believe that the government has zero business in public health decisions involving refined sugars, then we just fundamentally disagree about what good governance is. (nevermind the social media element, which is new and evolving and a higher-dimensional problem space) And that's ok. I will likely vote and conspire against the interests of people like this (with that view of government) until I the day I die (or my mind is changed), and cultivate communities that openly resist building the world based on those assumptions.
• ajkjk 3y ago
  I think of it as: in 50 years it will be obvious to everyone that these things fall in the category of "health problems", because they are, similar to junk food, and we'll have a way of societally regulating the danger that is aligned with our ethics. But we're presently in the middle of the long transition in which not everyone has figured that out yet, and in which we don't have a widely-agreed-upon moral stance on the subject that reconciles the need to do something about it with our existing value systems. We're going to have to find it one way or the other, so the question is "when", not "if". No doubt in 2174 we will have a bunch of new issues that are at different places in the pipeline. We'll probably be debating the ethics of mind-control implants or something. But in the meantime this one will solved.
• nmz 3y ago
  FB, IG, Tiktok etc are platforms/publishers, they're not individuals, free speech has nothing to do with them.