4 ms·

Yes people and especially kids are a lot into into mindless consumption. Whenever I travel( I travel a lot) I see almost every child on train with a smartphone

Yes people and especially kids are a lot into into mindless consumption. Whenever I travel( I travel a lot) I see almost every child on train with a smartphone mindlessly scrolling through dumb reels with their parents too lazy to give them a good engagement which will actually develop them.

Kye 2y ago
You're going around peeking at what children are doing on their personal devices enough to have a representative sample? I'm not sure it's the internet they need protecting from... edit: removed the part that wasn't really the point at all and seemed to draw a lot of noise from people who love to snoop and aren't used to consequences.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  You don't need to be aggressive. One can notice without being invasive, looking is still allowed as far as I know.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    They were not aggressive.
  - Kye 2y ago
    I'm not sure how someone can see enough of what kids do on their phones to have such confidence in their view of it without being invasive. I have no idea what most people do on their phones while they're in view, and I have no way to know if it's representative of their overall usage.
    - willy_k 2y ago
      You don’t need to see their screens, there are plenty of other signs such as the craned neck, periodic scrolling motion, or more obviously the cascade of grating music and voiceovers as many kids have lost the idea of decency in public. Source: am in the demographic of interest, guilty of constantly scrolling YouTube shorts, and have observed countless others in my demo captured by TikTok and Reels.
      - Kye 2y ago
        I would hope a law with such wide-reaching and destructive effect would have more rigor backing it than vibes and anecdotes like this, but I know that's wishful thinking.
        willy_k 2y ago
        I agree, it doesn’t. And the law should not be passed.
- utkarsh858 2y ago
  One does't need to peek unless one is really dumb, especially when the kids are changing reels with full volume on
  - Kye 2y ago
    You're willing to support a broad censorship program that will affect everyone and harm marginalized people because you snooped on some kids on a train in a narrow, non-representative slice of their lives. You know nothing about them, but you act like you do.
  - utkarsh858 2y ago
    I never snoop like I said. And yes I know about kids because I was a kid too! and have suffered the same. Only people living under a rock will act fully dumb when predators harm kids through online methods.
    - Kye 2y ago
      I was a kid, too. I could spot and avoid the predators because my parents made sure I understood it was a risk, knew how to spot them, and knew I could trust them with any questions I had. In reality, I encountered more predators offline, but had the skills to deal with it.
- 15155 2y ago
  > If you did this to me I would smack you. Violence in response to a legal, non-violent activity? In most free areas, one could use as much force as necessary to stop the threat and apprehend you for this activity. Nice ninja: > edit: removed the part that wasn't really the point at all and seemed to draw a lot of noise from people who love to snoop and aren't used to consequences. You seem to be the one not used to consequences: hit people in public and you may wind up getting shot in most free areas that care about rule of law. End of story.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kye 2y ago
    >> "You seem to be the one not used to consequences: hit people in public and you may wind up getting shot in most free areas that care about rule of law. End of story." Vigilantism is the opposite of rule of law. Shooting someone because you got hit for acting like you want to steal their property is also not rule of law. This is all very much beside the point, but if we can't even agree that murder is an excessive escalation then I don't see how we could agree on the boundaries of censorship. This entire conversation is a prime example of why none of us can be trusted to decide what each other is allowed to see online.
    - 15155 2y ago
      > you got hit for acting like you want to steal their property Good luck arguing this one. > we can't even agree that murder is an excessive escalation We're not going to agree: you are not entitled to strike people in public for looking at your phone. In my area, this makes you fair game to be apprehended for assault, using as much force as necessary to subdue you. Someone who is so unhinged as to hit people in public is not likely to submit to arrest peacefully - nobody said "murder."
      - Kye 2y ago
        This is why I took that part out. You're going off on this wild tangent based on a ridiculous misreading of something I took out because people were misreading it. I could have rewritten it better, but I took it out instead because it was off-topic and would still be off-topic if I made it more clear. HN has a great guideline here: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." So you didn't mean you would murder someone for defending their property, because you didn't understand that's what I meant, and didn't know about the guideline. Okay. I accept that. I should have followed it too. The thing about the guideline is there are two ways to go: your interpretation is correct and going off on a tangent is just going to be fruitless as we've seen here (because clearly I'm an unhinged freak who goes around hitting people over a glance), or you're wrong and making a mess of things over nothing (because I'm a rational human being who only uses violence as last resort). It's about assuming the person you're talking to is the latter because there's no point talking to them if you're right and it's the former. Let's move back to the actual topic.

Kye 2y ago

You're going around peeking at what children are doing on their personal devices enough to have a representative sample? I'm not sure it's the internet they need protecting from... edit: removed the part that wasn't really the point at all and seemed to draw a lot of noise from people who love to snoop and aren't used to consequences.

onemoresoop 2y ago
You don't need to be aggressive. One can notice without being invasive, looking is still allowed as far as I know.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  They were not aggressive.
- Kye 2y ago
  I'm not sure how someone can see enough of what kids do on their phones to have such confidence in their view of it without being invasive. I have no idea what most people do on their phones while they're in view, and I have no way to know if it's representative of their overall usage.
  - willy_k 2y ago
    You don’t need to see their screens, there are plenty of other signs such as the craned neck, periodic scrolling motion, or more obviously the cascade of grating music and voiceovers as many kids have lost the idea of decency in public. Source: am in the demographic of interest, guilty of constantly scrolling YouTube shorts, and have observed countless others in my demo captured by TikTok and Reels.
    - Kye 2y ago
      I would hope a law with such wide-reaching and destructive effect would have more rigor backing it than vibes and anecdotes like this, but I know that's wishful thinking.
      - willy_k 2y ago
        I agree, it doesn’t. And the law should not be passed.
utkarsh858 2y ago
One does't need to peek unless one is really dumb, especially when the kids are changing reels with full volume on
- Kye 2y ago
  You're willing to support a broad censorship program that will affect everyone and harm marginalized people because you snooped on some kids on a train in a narrow, non-representative slice of their lives. You know nothing about them, but you act like you do.
- utkarsh858 2y ago
  I never snoop like I said. And yes I know about kids because I was a kid too! and have suffered the same. Only people living under a rock will act fully dumb when predators harm kids through online methods.
  - Kye 2y ago
    I was a kid, too. I could spot and avoid the predators because my parents made sure I understood it was a risk, knew how to spot them, and knew I could trust them with any questions I had. In reality, I encountered more predators offline, but had the skills to deal with it.
15155 2y ago
> If you did this to me I would smack you. Violence in response to a legal, non-violent activity? In most free areas, one could use as much force as necessary to stop the threat and apprehend you for this activity. Nice ninja: > edit: removed the part that wasn't really the point at all and seemed to draw a lot of noise from people who love to snoop and aren't used to consequences. You seem to be the one not used to consequences: hit people in public and you may wind up getting shot in most free areas that care about rule of law. End of story.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Kye 2y ago
  >> "You seem to be the one not used to consequences: hit people in public and you may wind up getting shot in most free areas that care about rule of law. End of story." Vigilantism is the opposite of rule of law. Shooting someone because you got hit for acting like you want to steal their property is also not rule of law. This is all very much beside the point, but if we can't even agree that murder is an excessive escalation then I don't see how we could agree on the boundaries of censorship. This entire conversation is a prime example of why none of us can be trusted to decide what each other is allowed to see online.
  - 15155 2y ago
    > you got hit for acting like you want to steal their property Good luck arguing this one. > we can't even agree that murder is an excessive escalation We're not going to agree: you are not entitled to strike people in public for looking at your phone. In my area, this makes you fair game to be apprehended for assault, using as much force as necessary to subdue you. Someone who is so unhinged as to hit people in public is not likely to submit to arrest peacefully - nobody said "murder."
    - Kye 2y ago
      This is why I took that part out. You're going off on this wild tangent based on a ridiculous misreading of something I took out because people were misreading it. I could have rewritten it better, but I took it out instead because it was off-topic and would still be off-topic if I made it more clear. HN has a great guideline here: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." So you didn't mean you would murder someone for defending their property, because you didn't understand that's what I meant, and didn't know about the guideline. Okay. I accept that. I should have followed it too. The thing about the guideline is there are two ways to go: your interpretation is correct and going off on a tangent is just going to be fruitless as we've seen here (because clearly I'm an unhinged freak who goes around hitting people over a glance), or you're wrong and making a mess of things over nothing (because I'm a rational human being who only uses violence as last resort). It's about assuming the person you're talking to is the latter because there's no point talking to them if you're right and it's the former. Let's move back to the actual topic.