4 ms·

You couldn't exhibit a better analogy, so you used this bad one instead.

by nh23423fefe 2y ago

jeremyjh 2y ago
And you couldn’t list one reason it’s bad, so you didn’t give any.
- JustExAWS 2y ago
  Because there is no knob you can turn and get rid of lead paint. You can use parental controls and block kids access to sites and apps you find objectionable
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > You can use parental controls and block kids access to sites and apps you find objectionable You can use parental controls and block kirds access to sites you found objectionable in the past, just as you can keep your kids out of buildings you jave previously inspected for lead paint. OTOH, I suspect people raising this objection (note that I am not, even if I think I have an understanding of how they might apply the analogy) would prefer to have some guarantee that people aren't doing the equivalent of repainting with lead paint after the parents have inspected, and would often even prefer not have to do the equivalent of inspecting every virtual building their children might enter for the digital equivalent of lead paint.
    - JustExAWS 2y ago
      Well, since the internet is international, how do you propose that you make legislation that will keep your kids “safe” from international sites? This isn’t hypothetical, right now there is a law in Florida where porn sites must verify the age of users. I’m sure you would be shocked to know that kids can still get to porn sites without age verification. Sites not based in the US just ignored the law. However, you can still use parental controls to block those sites.
  - jeremyjh 2y ago
    Its essentially part of the environment at this point, you can't completely control access. Kids without social media access are second-class citizens - or worse - in their peer groups. The reason the platforms do not offer an option to turn off algorithmic feeds is because they make a lot of money off these kids.
    - JustExAWS 2y ago
      So do you also buy your kids iPhones so they won’t feel like second class citizens with green bubbles? Would you buy your kids $150 Jordan’s or whatever the equivalent is today so they would be part of the in crowd? Say it’s okay to do drugs because if they don’t they won’t be part of the crowd?
      - jeremyjh 2y ago
        I'd guess maybe 40% of kids are using drugs now and then, less than 5% regularly (at least in my district). But over 90% are on Instagram, even more on Tiktok. Its not really comparable.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        And what’s stopping you from using parental controls to keep your kids off of Instagram? It’s comparable because you don’t let your kids do other things I’m sure just because other kids are doing it.
        jeremyjh 2y ago
        I already explained that part.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        That you don’t want to be a responsible parent and you are worried about your kids being ostracized? You never did answer the rest. Do you also buy your kids the latest fashion, the newest iPhone and let them use drugs so they fit in?
- consteval 2y ago
  A better analogy is that algorithms are designed to be feedback loops that trigger extremely positive or negative emotions in people. Meaning, they are addiction machines. Allowing minors access to addiction machines is like allowing them access to tobacco. Generally, we say “fuck it” when it comes to addiction in adults. Personal choice or whatever - never mind the very definition of addiction undermines choice. But with children, we at least try to shield them from things that they will be hooked on indefinitely. Try, I say, because we don’t do a great job. Just look at food. I’m not in favor of child censorship type legislation because it’s almost always a poor excuse at authoritarianism and censorship. But, reframing algorithmic feeds as slot machines or cigs makes the position much more understandable.

You couldn't exhibit a better analogy, so you used this bad one instead.

jeremyjh 2y ago

And you couldn’t list one reason it’s bad, so you didn’t give any.

JustExAWS 2y ago
Because there is no knob you can turn and get rid of lead paint. You can use parental controls and block kids access to sites and apps you find objectionable
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > You can use parental controls and block kids access to sites and apps you find objectionable You can use parental controls and block kirds access to sites you found objectionable in the past, just as you can keep your kids out of buildings you jave previously inspected for lead paint. OTOH, I suspect people raising this objection (note that I am not, even if I think I have an understanding of how they might apply the analogy) would prefer to have some guarantee that people aren't doing the equivalent of repainting with lead paint after the parents have inspected, and would often even prefer not have to do the equivalent of inspecting every virtual building their children might enter for the digital equivalent of lead paint.
  - JustExAWS 2y ago
    Well, since the internet is international, how do you propose that you make legislation that will keep your kids “safe” from international sites? This isn’t hypothetical, right now there is a law in Florida where porn sites must verify the age of users. I’m sure you would be shocked to know that kids can still get to porn sites without age verification. Sites not based in the US just ignored the law. However, you can still use parental controls to block those sites.
- jeremyjh 2y ago
  Its essentially part of the environment at this point, you can't completely control access. Kids without social media access are second-class citizens - or worse - in their peer groups. The reason the platforms do not offer an option to turn off algorithmic feeds is because they make a lot of money off these kids.
  - JustExAWS 2y ago
    So do you also buy your kids iPhones so they won’t feel like second class citizens with green bubbles? Would you buy your kids $150 Jordan’s or whatever the equivalent is today so they would be part of the in crowd? Say it’s okay to do drugs because if they don’t they won’t be part of the crowd?
    - jeremyjh 2y ago
      I'd guess maybe 40% of kids are using drugs now and then, less than 5% regularly (at least in my district). But over 90% are on Instagram, even more on Tiktok. Its not really comparable.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        And what’s stopping you from using parental controls to keep your kids off of Instagram? It’s comparable because you don’t let your kids do other things I’m sure just because other kids are doing it.
        jeremyjh 2y ago
        I already explained that part.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        That you don’t want to be a responsible parent and you are worried about your kids being ostracized? You never did answer the rest. Do you also buy your kids the latest fashion, the newest iPhone and let them use drugs so they fit in?
consteval 2y ago
A better analogy is that algorithms are designed to be feedback loops that trigger extremely positive or negative emotions in people. Meaning, they are addiction machines. Allowing minors access to addiction machines is like allowing them access to tobacco. Generally, we say “fuck it” when it comes to addiction in adults. Personal choice or whatever - never mind the very definition of addiction undermines choice. But with children, we at least try to shield them from things that they will be hooked on indefinitely. Try, I say, because we don’t do a great job. Just look at food. I’m not in favor of child censorship type legislation because it’s almost always a poor excuse at authoritarianism and censorship. But, reframing algorithmic feeds as slot machines or cigs makes the position much more understandable.