5 ms·

I actually do think people directly see the negative public health impact, its so visceral in so many parents lives, and that that is the driving force behind a

I actually do think people directly see the negative public health impact, its so visceral in so many parents lives, and that that is the driving force behind all of this. I love being cynical, but I actually do buy these efforts as being purely "for the kids", kind of thing. Sure, there are knock-on effects, but I do buy the good faith-ness of phone bans in school and of these social media bans for kids.

jfindper 10mo ago
I think this might be true at the parent level, but less and less true as you climb up the government ladder. The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.
jmathai 10mo ago
It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 10mo ago
  Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all. Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.
  - fn-mote 10mo ago
    How do you know you’re not losing? How many years of evidence do you have? I think I won my battle against being addicted to games… but I don’t go back to find out.
  - poguemahoney 10mo ago
    I'd view that as more of a works for me argument than necessarily actionable. Social dynamics are complex and personality, status, etc, plays into which relationships end up mattering, being convincing, etc. I.e. some children bond closer to a grandparent not because parents have failed in any way at honest conversations.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Loic 10mo ago
    3 kids, same honest conversations, 2 where it worked and works very well, 1 where it is a constant battle. So sorry but no, the platforms are addictive and not all the kids can resist against an armada of statisticians ensuring the systems stay addictive only through honest conversations. By the way, this would mean you could solve all the addiction issues if it would be working...
  - lynx97 10mo ago
    [flagged]
  - zmmmmm 10mo ago
    You don't know you lost until after it happens. Then it's too late.
- dvngnt_ 10mo ago
  you could if you just whitelisted the apps you wanted your kids to use
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    and delete the web browser?
    - eikenberry 10mo ago
      Computers (they each had their own) in public space and no phone until 14. Worked great w/o no filtering or whitelisting of any sort.
    - dvngnt_ 10mo ago
      there are similar mechanisms for controlling website usage. school computers do it all the time
      - bdangubic 10mo ago
        ballpark percentage of parents that are technically savvy to set this up? I'd put that at 0.0284%
  - 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
    And make sure you do it at their friend’s houses too, and on every public device, and make sure they never leave that locked down app bubble ever.
- lisbbb 10mo ago
  My son is 15. My talk to him went something like this: There's a lot of porn and nasty things that you can't unsee, so be careful what you look at. Also, those extortion gangs target teenage boys, so if some girl is suddenly hot for you online, come see me immediately so we can troll the ever loving fuck out of them. I think it went pretty well. We like doing things as a family, but more like the Addams family...
  - HPsquared 10mo ago
    That's the only way that can work in the long term.
  - rpdillon 10mo ago
    Also have a 15 year old, same talk. Seemed to be just fine.
  - chad_strategic 10mo ago
    Holy Kimchi on a Popsicle Stick! I feel validated! Bless you the holy spirit of Bad Religion.
  - beeforpork 10mo ago
    Yes! I'd call this preparation for life. Education and believably honest offers of support are needed to navigate the world, which is ugly and evil in some parts. Restrictions are really just counterproductive because curious young people are drawn to restricted stuff, and age restrictions build a sense of 'us (the young) against them (the adults)', so it's hard to convince that you actually offer honest support. Restrictions also focus on the bad parts, while we should instead focus on the good parts, the advantages of a global network of anything, which is totally amazing. Restrictions are counter productive. Humans need to learn to live here, and it starts when we're young and curious.
    - 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
      Ok, now we have no restrictions. Timmy just got his driver’s license at 13 and is on his way to 7-11 to pick up a 24 pack because he’s young and curious.
- seneca 10mo ago
  > It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok. Sorry, but this just isn't the case. I have children very much in the target age here, and they only have a passing understand of what social media even is due to us explaining how unhealthy it is to them. It's unfortunate you feel incapable of achieving the same, but abdicating your responsibility as a parent to the state isn't the answer.
  - 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
    Likewise, the state abdicating its responsibility and placing the burden solely on parents isn't fair either, and that is exactly the environment we currently find ourselves in.
  - Lerc 10mo ago
    I remember there being an experiment where parents were placed in a room with some toys their children were allowed to play with and some toys their children weren't allowed to. They measured the parents perceived level of control against their actual level of control by seeing if they stopped their children from playing with the researchers laptop that had been left in the corner of the room. Part of me wonders if it was apocryphal, I'm not sure if a test like that would get past an ethics committee (at least since laptops existed)
  - palata 10mo ago
    Yes, let's allow cigarette manufacturers to target children, and let's the capable parents teach them. Same for porn, alcohol, drugs. If your kids have issues, it's your fault, not society's. /s
- rpdillon 10mo ago
  Remarkably, Youtube's logged out experience will still be completely available to all age groups. And an a Australian HN user mentioned that one 14-year old had another (presumably older looking) 14-year old do the "video selfie" for her to verify her account on one the sites. So I'm not sure the fight will go away, but it may be slightly more tractable. It will normalize people thinking that uploading their state-issued ID to whatever contractor is validating accounts is safe and normal.
- makeitdouble 10mo ago
  Most people probably agree something needs to be done at scale. Banning kids sounds neither effective nor long term beneficial though, and at the core of it seems to deflect from solving deeper issues. It looks like they're "doing something" while nothing really changes or potentially gets worse. Trying to regulate Meta/YouTube from there has IMHO become harder, as kids are on paper supposed to be out of the picture.
yfw 10mo ago
Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn. And its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones. How would you measure any level of success from this initiative? Doing something isnt a solution if it has tons of bad sideeffects
- Y_Y 10mo ago
  > its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones It very much is not.
  - Manuel_D 10mo ago
    It very much is. Free VPNs almost always have some sort of catch. E.g. HolaVPN users agree in the ToS to become an exit node for other VPN users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hola_(VPN) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hola_(VPN) If social media is so compelling, then teens almost certainly will take whatever steps are necessary to access it.
    - Y_Y 10mo ago
      Proton has a good free offering. That's not the point though. The kids can just not get a VPN, and instead do something else with their time.
  - yfw 10mo ago
    Because social media is so easy to cut out you dont need to ban it or its so addictive you do?
- dghlsakjg 10mo ago
  > Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn. One does not follow from the other. We make speeding illegal even though even the most affordable cars can trivially bypass all speed restrictions. It doesn't mean that the efforts to curb speeding are in bad faith just because it is still possible to bypass speed reduction rules.
noosphr 10mo ago
Banning the printing press in Europe would have stopped the 30 years war. Somehow I don't think anyone here would approve of the long term consequences. The end result of this will be that everyone needs to give their real name and address to view social media. Anything you say or watch that the current government doesn't like will result in police coming for a chat.
- BlueTemplar 10mo ago
  That's a bad analogy, more like : Printing Press <=> The Internet but Social Media <=> Some specific forms of (mostly centralized) publishing
treis 10mo ago
It's not that the people don't genuinely believe what they're saying. It's that they've deluded themselves into thinking their ideological right is "for the kids". There's always been Reefer Madness sorts of people. Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Video Games, DnD, Rap Music, Homosexuality, and on and on. Today it's half woke mind virus and half DEI (for lack of a better term). Most of the people that spout this stuff genuinely believe they're fighting for the kids.

jfindper 10mo ago

I think this might be true at the parent level, but less and less true as you climb up the government ladder. The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.

jmathai 10mo ago

It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 10mo ago
Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all. Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.
- fn-mote 10mo ago
  How do you know you’re not losing? How many years of evidence do you have? I think I won my battle against being addicted to games… but I don’t go back to find out.
- poguemahoney 10mo ago
  I'd view that as more of a works for me argument than necessarily actionable. Social dynamics are complex and personality, status, etc, plays into which relationships end up mattering, being convincing, etc. I.e. some children bond closer to a grandparent not because parents have failed in any way at honest conversations.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- Loic 10mo ago
  3 kids, same honest conversations, 2 where it worked and works very well, 1 where it is a constant battle. So sorry but no, the platforms are addictive and not all the kids can resist against an armada of statisticians ensuring the systems stay addictive only through honest conversations. By the way, this would mean you could solve all the addiction issues if it would be working...
- lynx97 10mo ago
  [flagged]
- zmmmmm 10mo ago
  You don't know you lost until after it happens. Then it's too late.
dvngnt_ 10mo ago
you could if you just whitelisted the apps you wanted your kids to use
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  and delete the web browser?
  - eikenberry 10mo ago
    Computers (they each had their own) in public space and no phone until 14. Worked great w/o no filtering or whitelisting of any sort.
  - dvngnt_ 10mo ago
    there are similar mechanisms for controlling website usage. school computers do it all the time
    - bdangubic 10mo ago
      ballpark percentage of parents that are technically savvy to set this up? I'd put that at 0.0284%
- 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
  And make sure you do it at their friend’s houses too, and on every public device, and make sure they never leave that locked down app bubble ever.
lisbbb 10mo ago
My son is 15. My talk to him went something like this: There's a lot of porn and nasty things that you can't unsee, so be careful what you look at. Also, those extortion gangs target teenage boys, so if some girl is suddenly hot for you online, come see me immediately so we can troll the ever loving fuck out of them. I think it went pretty well. We like doing things as a family, but more like the Addams family...
- HPsquared 10mo ago
  That's the only way that can work in the long term.
- rpdillon 10mo ago
  Also have a 15 year old, same talk. Seemed to be just fine.
- chad_strategic 10mo ago
  Holy Kimchi on a Popsicle Stick! I feel validated! Bless you the holy spirit of Bad Religion.
- beeforpork 10mo ago
  Yes! I'd call this preparation for life. Education and believably honest offers of support are needed to navigate the world, which is ugly and evil in some parts. Restrictions are really just counterproductive because curious young people are drawn to restricted stuff, and age restrictions build a sense of 'us (the young) against them (the adults)', so it's hard to convince that you actually offer honest support. Restrictions also focus on the bad parts, while we should instead focus on the good parts, the advantages of a global network of anything, which is totally amazing. Restrictions are counter productive. Humans need to learn to live here, and it starts when we're young and curious.
  - 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
    Ok, now we have no restrictions. Timmy just got his driver’s license at 13 and is on his way to 7-11 to pick up a 24 pack because he’s young and curious.
seneca 10mo ago
> It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok. Sorry, but this just isn't the case. I have children very much in the target age here, and they only have a passing understand of what social media even is due to us explaining how unhealthy it is to them. It's unfortunate you feel incapable of achieving the same, but abdicating your responsibility as a parent to the state isn't the answer.
- 1121redblackgo 10mo ago
  Likewise, the state abdicating its responsibility and placing the burden solely on parents isn't fair either, and that is exactly the environment we currently find ourselves in.
- Lerc 10mo ago
  I remember there being an experiment where parents were placed in a room with some toys their children were allowed to play with and some toys their children weren't allowed to. They measured the parents perceived level of control against their actual level of control by seeing if they stopped their children from playing with the researchers laptop that had been left in the corner of the room. Part of me wonders if it was apocryphal, I'm not sure if a test like that would get past an ethics committee (at least since laptops existed)
- palata 10mo ago
  Yes, let's allow cigarette manufacturers to target children, and let's the capable parents teach them. Same for porn, alcohol, drugs. If your kids have issues, it's your fault, not society's. /s
rpdillon 10mo ago
Remarkably, Youtube's logged out experience will still be completely available to all age groups. And an a Australian HN user mentioned that one 14-year old had another (presumably older looking) 14-year old do the "video selfie" for her to verify her account on one the sites. So I'm not sure the fight will go away, but it may be slightly more tractable. It will normalize people thinking that uploading their state-issued ID to whatever contractor is validating accounts is safe and normal.
makeitdouble 10mo ago
Most people probably agree something needs to be done at scale. Banning kids sounds neither effective nor long term beneficial though, and at the core of it seems to deflect from solving deeper issues. It looks like they're "doing something" while nothing really changes or potentially gets worse. Trying to regulate Meta/YouTube from there has IMHO become harder, as kids are on paper supposed to be out of the picture.

yfw 10mo ago

Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn. And its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones. How would you measure any level of success from this initiative? Doing something isnt a solution if it has tons of bad sideeffects

Y_Y 10mo ago
> its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones It very much is not.
- Manuel_D 10mo ago
  It very much is. Free VPNs almost always have some sort of catch. E.g. HolaVPN users agree in the ToS to become an exit node for other VPN users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hola_(VPN) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hola_(VPN) If social media is so compelling, then teens almost certainly will take whatever steps are necessary to access it.
  - Y_Y 10mo ago
    Proton has a good free offering. That's not the point though. The kids can just not get a VPN, and instead do something else with their time.
- yfw 10mo ago
  Because social media is so easy to cut out you dont need to ban it or its so addictive you do?
dghlsakjg 10mo ago
> Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn. One does not follow from the other. We make speeding illegal even though even the most affordable cars can trivially bypass all speed restrictions. It doesn't mean that the efforts to curb speeding are in bad faith just because it is still possible to bypass speed reduction rules.

noosphr 10mo ago

Banning the printing press in Europe would have stopped the 30 years war. Somehow I don't think anyone here would approve of the long term consequences. The end result of this will be that everyone needs to give their real name and address to view social media. Anything you say or watch that the current government doesn't like will result in police coming for a chat.

BlueTemplar 10mo ago
That's a bad analogy, more like : Printing Press <=> The Internet but Social Media <=> Some specific forms of (mostly centralized) publishing

treis 10mo ago

It's not that the people don't genuinely believe what they're saying. It's that they've deluded themselves into thinking their ideological right is "for the kids". There's always been Reefer Madness sorts of people. Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Video Games, DnD, Rap Music, Homosexuality, and on and on. Today it's half woke mind virus and half DEI (for lack of a better term). Most of the people that spout this stuff genuinely believe they're fighting for the kids.