4 ms·

That is unfortunate. We have already ruined a generation of kids. There’s no need to continue stepping on the same rake. Kids already don’t have “freedom of spe

by ein0p 2y ago

That is unfortunate. We have already ruined a generation of kids. There’s no need to continue stepping on the same rake. Kids already don’t have “freedom of speech”, and neither do companies when working with kids.

SllX 2y ago
Kids do have the same First Amendment protections you or I do. What they don’t have is much political or financial power to protect it, so it only really gets asserted when parents assert it for them, and it does get balanced against institutional interests (“disrupting class”). See: West Virginia vs Barnette: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnette-the-freedom-to-not-pledge-allegiance https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnett... And: Mahanoy Area School District vs B.L.: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/supreme-court-snapchat-school-free-speech-495655 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/supreme-court-snapc... Companies also just don’t automatically lose their constitutional protections either simply because they’re working with a specific class of society.
- ein0p 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anthk 2y ago
    1) Don't give smartphones to kids 2) Give a locked down one to a teen 3) Contact your ISP to block all the porn/gambling/illegal domains and such at DNS level 4) https://github.com/stevenblack/hosts https://github.com/stevenblack/hosts for the rest of HN users, it can be really effective if you disable DoH on most browsers
    - ein0p 2y ago
      None of this works if your kid’s school requires a laptop. Which in 2024 all of them do. Kids older than 10 years old can easily bypass any “parental control” you can realistically deploy. But more to the point, I’d want the companies to at least stop _targeting_ kids explicitly and take measures against Internet addiction. It goes without saying that no prohibition is going to be 100% effective.
  - bhhaskin 2y ago
    That doesn't mean they are wrong lol
  - SllX 2y ago
    You’re not wrong there but neither am I. If it helps, you’re not the government and your children’s rights do not impugn your rights, responsibilities and authority as a parent.
- agensaequivocum 2y ago
  Awesome, an AR-15 for all children.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- paulddraper 2y ago
  The rights of children to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  - SllX 2y ago
    You’ve got the wrong amendment there, little buddy.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      I mean, rights are rights. In that regard there’s no difference between the two. 2nd amendment does not specify the type of arms nor the age at which your right to keep and bear them begins. Indeed until 1968 there was no consistent age limit for gun ownership.
      - SllX 2y ago
        If the law and existing jurisprudence were “if A then also B”, you would be correct. However, that is not the case and guns are much more controlled than anything the First Amendment protects under the jurisprudence of 2024. First Amendment: > 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. Second Amendment: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Note also that these are written two very different ways. It’s not “these rights are protected”, but in the one, there is a clear prohibition on the types of laws that Congress is allowed to pass. The second says the right of the people [to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed. This is much more amorphous compared to the straight up prohibition on Congress and even under a loose constitutional gun control regime, allows for plenty of lawmaking with respect to firearms and their usage. Plus the entire doctrine of incorporation kind of screws up any straightforward reading of these as applied to the States. We’re relying a lot on Federal judicial jurisprudence to apply any of the Bill of Rights against the States because without the 14th amendment, they wouldn’t be, but at least with the First Amendment, it’s much more straightforward and there’s a history of the Courts actually protecting the First Amendment rights of minors and affirming that they do have them.
stevenicr 2y ago
Since this is HN, my first thought about your statement "We have already ruined a generation" was that is implying "We" as in "Tech Companies" or whatnot.. but the statement may be more accurate to imply We as in 'Parents' I'm still not sure what exactly that was meaning in so far as who 'We' is/were supposed to be.
- ein0p 2y ago
  Phones and other devices are basically a requirement from elementary school onwards. As a parent you can’t do anything about that. Contrary to popular belief children don’t just do what you tell them to do. They get addicted to this shit and spend hours every day watching bullshit on YouTube. When they’re little that’s solvable. But when a laptop is required for homework and school, you’ve lost the game.

by ein0p 2y ago

SllX 2y ago

Kids do have the same First Amendment protections you or I do. What they don’t have is much political or financial power to protect it, so it only really gets asserted when parents assert it for them, and it does get balanced against institutional interests (“disrupting class”). See: West Virginia vs Barnette: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnette-the-freedom-to-not-pledge-allegiance https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnett... And: Mahanoy Area School District vs B.L.: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/supreme-court-snapchat-school-free-speech-495655 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/supreme-court-snapc... Companies also just don’t automatically lose their constitutional protections either simply because they’re working with a specific class of society.

ein0p 2y ago
[flagged]
- anthk 2y ago
  1) Don't give smartphones to kids 2) Give a locked down one to a teen 3) Contact your ISP to block all the porn/gambling/illegal domains and such at DNS level 4) https://github.com/stevenblack/hosts https://github.com/stevenblack/hosts for the rest of HN users, it can be really effective if you disable DoH on most browsers
  - ein0p 2y ago
    None of this works if your kid’s school requires a laptop. Which in 2024 all of them do. Kids older than 10 years old can easily bypass any “parental control” you can realistically deploy. But more to the point, I’d want the companies to at least stop _targeting_ kids explicitly and take measures against Internet addiction. It goes without saying that no prohibition is going to be 100% effective.
- bhhaskin 2y ago
  That doesn't mean they are wrong lol
- SllX 2y ago
  You’re not wrong there but neither am I. If it helps, you’re not the government and your children’s rights do not impugn your rights, responsibilities and authority as a parent.
agensaequivocum 2y ago
Awesome, an AR-15 for all children.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
paulddraper 2y ago
The rights of children to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- SllX 2y ago
  You’ve got the wrong amendment there, little buddy.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    I mean, rights are rights. In that regard there’s no difference between the two. 2nd amendment does not specify the type of arms nor the age at which your right to keep and bear them begins. Indeed until 1968 there was no consistent age limit for gun ownership.
    - SllX 2y ago
      If the law and existing jurisprudence were “if A then also B”, you would be correct. However, that is not the case and guns are much more controlled than anything the First Amendment protects under the jurisprudence of 2024. First Amendment: > 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. Second Amendment: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Note also that these are written two very different ways. It’s not “these rights are protected”, but in the one, there is a clear prohibition on the types of laws that Congress is allowed to pass. The second says the right of the people [to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed. This is much more amorphous compared to the straight up prohibition on Congress and even under a loose constitutional gun control regime, allows for plenty of lawmaking with respect to firearms and their usage. Plus the entire doctrine of incorporation kind of screws up any straightforward reading of these as applied to the States. We’re relying a lot on Federal judicial jurisprudence to apply any of the Bill of Rights against the States because without the 14th amendment, they wouldn’t be, but at least with the First Amendment, it’s much more straightforward and there’s a history of the Courts actually protecting the First Amendment rights of minors and affirming that they do have them.

stevenicr 2y ago

Since this is HN, my first thought about your statement "We have already ruined a generation" was that is implying "We" as in "Tech Companies" or whatnot.. but the statement may be more accurate to imply We as in 'Parents' I'm still not sure what exactly that was meaning in so far as who 'We' is/were supposed to be.

ein0p 2y ago
Phones and other devices are basically a requirement from elementary school onwards. As a parent you can’t do anything about that. Contrary to popular belief children don’t just do what you tell them to do. They get addicted to this shit and spend hours every day watching bullshit on YouTube. When they’re little that’s solvable. But when a laptop is required for homework and school, you’ve lost the game.