4 ms·

Funny how so many middle-aged tech workers, who were almost certainly using some primitive social media themselves as teenagers, are now in support of a full ba

Funny how so many middle-aged tech workers, who were almost certainly using some primitive social media themselves as teenagers, are now in support of a full ban. I don't like the outcomes we see with modern social media, but this feels like we're punishing the victim instead of the perpetrator.

jpalawaga 2y ago
social media for us was chronological timelines of content our friends produced. Not... waves hands whatever the f*%k this is.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  Profit, it's profit, almost free, self-perpetuation, self-promoting profit, build on addictions and exploitation of users.
- stonethrowaway 2y ago
  Upvoted for mental imagery.
- fsflover 2y ago
  So Mastodon should be fine for the kids to use?
maxehmookau 2y ago
Social media that tech workers in the 30s and 40s were exposed to was never any more intense than a bulletin board or a chat room. Social media now is a very different beast. It's designed to be addictive, and it generates engagement through polarization. Is banning social media for children a punishment for the child? Some parents would argue the opposite, that it's a good thing that the child isn't developed enough to realise yet.
- ev7 2y ago
  Banning social media for a single child creates social death; banning it for all promotes social life.
mrweasel 2y ago
> this feels like we're punishing the victim instead of the perpetrator. Wouldn't placing the limits on the social media companies potentially prevent them for operating at a profit? I don't think you're wrong, but I question if you're not removing social media for child and teenagers regardless, the difference is if there will be social media for them to use later in life. Banning social media for those under 16 (or 18) or killing off social media in general do to restrictions in how they operate doesn't really matter to me, even if the latter seems like a bigger win for society in general. Social media was an interesting and at times fun experiment, but it might be time accept that it's not working out as we had hoped.
- Sophira 2y ago
  One big difference is that LiveJournal, Inc. weren't a parasitic company who sought to embrace addiction and analyzing the hell out of their users with algorithms. They had every chance to because the data about interests and friends were just as open as they are on other services - perhaps even more so - but they didn't. I can't speak for the other big companies of the time, like MySpace and Xanga, because I never used them.
ryandrake 2y ago
Same happened with the Drug War. The generation that spend their entire teenage years in the 60s in a haze of MJ smoke became the fiercest prohibition advocates during the 80s and 90s.
- dsvnasd 2y ago
  Actually this could be a really good analogy on many levels. For example: Comparing the THC levels of the 60s to the THC levels today, and the potency social media of the 90s to the social media today seems appropriate. I mean one can only do so much social media over a slow modem on a home that has a single shared phone line. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-today-really-much-more-potent-than-50-years-ago/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-tod...
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Using social media as a teenager is why I think teenagers shouldnt be allowed to now. It was not a healthy experience.
davkan 2y ago
40-50 year olds did not grow up with social media. Myspace didn’t even exist when they were in high school. People in their early to mid 30s had Facebook come into popularity during high school. I’d wager the majority of that age group would happily ban social media for children having experienced youth both with and without modern social media.
- max51 2y ago
  The Facebook we had back then was completely different than what it is today. 100% of the content on the page was contents directly created or shared by one of your friend. No suggested posts, no ads, no news, no "influencers", no politicians, no algorithm, no tracking, etc. Being invite-only at first also means everyone you see on the site are friends or friends of friends, no parents, no teachers, no cops, no media organizations, no companies, etc. You would login and see what your friends were up to, in chronological order.
  - physicsguy 2y ago
    It was just poking people, playing silly games, and status updates that make me cringe when they come back in my "15 years ago today"
physicsguy 2y ago
> middle-aged tech workers, who were almost certainly using some primitive social media themselves as teenagers, are now in support of a full ban How many people do that becasue they have thought about what they perhaps look back on posting on MySpace or Bebo or whatever and think "thank god that's disappeared from the internet"?
DirkH 2y ago
Perhaps we support the ban because we saw first hand the damage it can cause to others and ourselves. I would have supported a ban when I was in highschool. I think a lot of teenagers would have. Also I don't understand how a ban is punishing the victim anymore than banning drugs from high-schools is punishing any teenagers.

jpalawaga 2y ago

social media for us was chronological timelines of content our friends produced. Not... waves hands whatever the f*%k this is.

mrweasel 2y ago
Profit, it's profit, almost free, self-perpetuation, self-promoting profit, build on addictions and exploitation of users.
stonethrowaway 2y ago
Upvoted for mental imagery.
fsflover 2y ago
So Mastodon should be fine for the kids to use?

maxehmookau 2y ago

Social media that tech workers in the 30s and 40s were exposed to was never any more intense than a bulletin board or a chat room. Social media now is a very different beast. It's designed to be addictive, and it generates engagement through polarization. Is banning social media for children a punishment for the child? Some parents would argue the opposite, that it's a good thing that the child isn't developed enough to realise yet.

ev7 2y ago
Banning social media for a single child creates social death; banning it for all promotes social life.

mrweasel 2y ago

> this feels like we're punishing the victim instead of the perpetrator. Wouldn't placing the limits on the social media companies potentially prevent them for operating at a profit? I don't think you're wrong, but I question if you're not removing social media for child and teenagers regardless, the difference is if there will be social media for them to use later in life. Banning social media for those under 16 (or 18) or killing off social media in general do to restrictions in how they operate doesn't really matter to me, even if the latter seems like a bigger win for society in general. Social media was an interesting and at times fun experiment, but it might be time accept that it's not working out as we had hoped.

Sophira 2y ago
One big difference is that LiveJournal, Inc. weren't a parasitic company who sought to embrace addiction and analyzing the hell out of their users with algorithms. They had every chance to because the data about interests and friends were just as open as they are on other services - perhaps even more so - but they didn't. I can't speak for the other big companies of the time, like MySpace and Xanga, because I never used them.

ryandrake 2y ago

Same happened with the Drug War. The generation that spend their entire teenage years in the 60s in a haze of MJ smoke became the fiercest prohibition advocates during the 80s and 90s.

dsvnasd 2y ago
Actually this could be a really good analogy on many levels. For example: Comparing the THC levels of the 60s to the THC levels today, and the potency social media of the 90s to the social media today seems appropriate. I mean one can only do so much social media over a slow modem on a home that has a single shared phone line. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-today-really-much-more-potent-than-50-years-ago/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-tod...

HDThoreaun 2y ago

Using social media as a teenager is why I think teenagers shouldnt be allowed to now. It was not a healthy experience.

davkan 2y ago

40-50 year olds did not grow up with social media. Myspace didn’t even exist when they were in high school. People in their early to mid 30s had Facebook come into popularity during high school. I’d wager the majority of that age group would happily ban social media for children having experienced youth both with and without modern social media.

max51 2y ago
The Facebook we had back then was completely different than what it is today. 100% of the content on the page was contents directly created or shared by one of your friend. No suggested posts, no ads, no news, no "influencers", no politicians, no algorithm, no tracking, etc. Being invite-only at first also means everyone you see on the site are friends or friends of friends, no parents, no teachers, no cops, no media organizations, no companies, etc. You would login and see what your friends were up to, in chronological order.
- physicsguy 2y ago
  It was just poking people, playing silly games, and status updates that make me cringe when they come back in my "15 years ago today"

physicsguy 2y ago

> middle-aged tech workers, who were almost certainly using some primitive social media themselves as teenagers, are now in support of a full ban How many people do that becasue they have thought about what they perhaps look back on posting on MySpace or Bebo or whatever and think "thank god that's disappeared from the internet"?

DirkH 2y ago

Perhaps we support the ban because we saw first hand the damage it can cause to others and ourselves. I would have supported a ban when I was in highschool. I think a lot of teenagers would have. Also I don't understand how a ban is punishing the victim anymore than banning drugs from high-schools is punishing any teenagers.