6 ms·

Come on dude, you are on HN. You probably know that social media is no longer about free speech. It’s a targeted advertising machine that is extremely effective

Come on dude, you are on HN. You probably know that social media is no longer about free speech. It’s a targeted advertising machine that is extremely effective on kids and teenagers. It preys on them so, so efficiently. It’s a technical work of art. A young mind is extremely susceptible to the algorithms on those platforms. Much more than adults are, and adults are already really susceptible. This is what this ban is trying to shield kids from. Not from them talking to each other. The Social media platforms of today are very clearly harmful to our youth. Just like alcohol and cigarettes are to a developing brain. Why can we ban those and not this?

FpUser 10mo ago
>"You probably know that social media is no longer about free speech, It’s a targeted advertising machine" Youtube for one is an advertising machine. On the other hand it is one of the few places where one can find some amazing educational and entertainment content. Prohibiting it I think is a crime. Besides, lately Politicians stick their noses everywhere. It is just way too much.
- osn9363739 10mo ago
  It's not banned for under 16s, they just can't sign up.
  - DocTomoe 10mo ago
    Which means they also do no longer benefit from family-grouped Youtube Premium, which means MORE ADS ... which is exactly what we tried to prevent, right?
    - osn9363739 10mo ago
      The main target of these bans algorithmic content curation and the addictive nature of such algorithms and the possible harmful content that could be presented. So no?
      - tigroferoce 10mo ago
        Maybe that instead of protesting against the regulation we should ask the platforms to provide ads-free and algorithm-free service to kids under 16.
        fireflash38 10mo ago
        Interesting. I don't know if you intended it, but algorithm free means no recommendations to me - even no recommended videos alongside existing videos. You want a video? You have to search for something. I think that is a surprisingly good solution. You can still access educational information, or really whatever videos you want, but you have to actively seek them out rather than ingest whatever is spit out at you.
        osn9363739 10mo ago
        I've used plugins like unhook in the past which do exactly this and it's nice. Now I just follow channels via rss and block everything else on the page. Same deal.
        mat_b 10mo ago
        Search results are pretty much the same thing though. It's a ranked list of recommended videos. It's just based on your text instead of the video you're watching.
        osn9363739 10mo ago
        I'd support that.
      - fogj094j0923j4 10mo ago
        Yeah but content curation ( e.g. building your own Alrogrithm TM ) is the only way you get out of the advertisement hell of Youtube. Browsing Youtube on Incognito and your feeds filled with Mr Beast and Tryphobia AI Generated contents.
        eimrine 10mo ago
    - Gigachad 10mo ago
      YouTube just needs to create a kids account feature which can’t post or comment.
      - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        They already have that. Youtube Kids. And it works horribly because apparently Family Guy counts as "for kids". And that's not even the tip of the iceberg on the problems presented. Tech is trying to push all these wonderful LLM's on us, telling us how it works like magic. Meanwhile, it can't even follow basic public TV labeling.
        Gigachad 10mo ago
        Youtube kids is designed for toddlers, and should probably be shut down entirely. What I'm talking about is something designed for 14 year olds where they can still subscribe to channels, have paid ad free, parental controls, etc. But not upload videos or use it in a social media way.
        eimrine 10mo ago
        Youtube (regular one) is already designed to be kids-friendly. There are no war images since recent AI moderation rollout. There are a lot of very forbidden words which can lead to ban account. There are a lot of mildly forbidden words which just do not appear in subtitle. You can not say anything bully on comments - it will be removed instantly. I don't consider anything bad in YT except of the whole top of popular bloggers - because they are clearly aimed at low-IQ people. Just don't be a stupid, and your kids will not watch the bloggers. Buy more instruments of all kinds for your kids and they will watch a lot of educational videos explaining different know-hows.
devmor 10mo ago
Why do we have to ban networked communication for teens instead of regulating it? Nearly everything about it that’s bad for teens also sucks for the rest of us.
- sardon 10mo ago
  hey they can still use networked communication - e.g. whatsapp, signal, etc. This ban is only concerning the following services Facebook Instagram Threads Kick Reddit Snapchat TikTok Twitch X (formerly Twitter) YouTube
  - DocTomoe 10mo ago
    First they came for Facebook, and I didn't protest, I was not on facebook. Here's what's going to happen next: Whatsapp/signal/telegram groups will become wildly popular. Which gives the wannabe-fascists the excuse to ban those as well 'for the children'. We've seen this salami tactic often enough to know the pattern.
    - SiempreViernes 10mo ago
      You are too modest! You should start your poem denouncing those pesky spam filters than hinders the honest viagra pill salesmen! Then you could regret your inaction when google downweighted zit-popping videos, and maybe you have reached the point where it becomes reasonable to regret losing Facebook the genocide facilitator.
      - DocTomoe 10mo ago
        There is a qualitative distinction between 'I filter for myself what I don't want to see' and 'The State decides what everyone is allowed to see.' Not too sure about those zit-popping videos. But in my time, we had rotten.com - so I might be immunized to that kind of stuff. Personally, I find a honest zit-popping video no worse than yet another AI voice going on and on about some non-topic, clearly written by AI as well. I don't seek out either, but the zit-popping at least is over after 10 seconds. But that's Google curating content. State censorship is something else entirely. Once justified "for the children" or "for security", it never stops at the first target. It grows, layer by layer. We’ve watched that pattern repeat for centuries across every medium humans have ever invented. Facebook, the genocide facilitator? If we are honest, so has the printing press. Let's ban letters, they have facilitated genocide. The printing press spread enlightenment, propaganda, revolutions, and atrocities. The State tried to control that too. It failed every time. It will fail with the net, for young people and for old ones. Repression never works long-term, it always creates pressure that eventually breaks the system that produced it. Historically, societies tend to get worse before they correct themselves, because authoritarian overreach generates exactly the instability it claims to prevent. Jefferson’s warning about the recurring need to renew freedom wasn’t a call for violence - it was an observation about the cyclical nature of power, repression, and reform. Every attempt to restrict communication has eventually collapsed under its own contradictions, and the internet will be no exception.
bongodongobob 10mo ago
It is a targeted advertising machine, that is one of its functions. I also don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't think the government has any businesses banning speech either. I also don't believe they want to "save the children".
enaaem 10mo ago
Biggest problem of social media is the addictive effects. It’s a dopamine creation machine. Hopefully people will see it like alcohol and cigarettes in the future.
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
>Why can we ban those and not this? we didn't ban cigarettes, we disincentivized them. Why can't we do the same here? regulate the algorithms, not the platform (the platform ultimately being "the internet"). This is just a cat and mouse game where every few years the government will ban whatever the kids like. That's not how you create a high trust society.
- nonfamous 10mo ago
  In the US, all persons under 21 are banned from purchasing cigarettes.
  - Fnoord 10mo ago
    How popular is vaping under teens in USA?
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  Yes we disincentivized cigarettes. But now both illegal drug use and legal weed use is up - win? https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2024/08/cannabis-and-hallucinogen-use-among-adults-remained-at-historic-highs-in-2023 https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2024/08/canna...
  - Nursie 10mo ago
    Comparatively, sure. I don't think either of those are as addictive or as deadly as tobacco use.
    - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
      Citations? It’s not that I have an opinion either way. Having anything that messes with my lungs is something I don’t touch. Not that I’m a health nut. But I have been a gym addict for over 30 years.
      - Nursie 10mo ago
rossy 10mo ago
> It’s a targeted advertising machine that is extremely effective on kids and teenagers. It preys on them so, so efficiently. It’s a technical work of art. A young mind is extremely susceptible to the algorithms on those platforms. Much more than adults are, and adults are already really susceptible. Sure, but the Australian government's definition of an age-restricted social media platform doesn't mention advertising or algorithms at all. Technically, their definition also covers algorithm-free social media like Mastodon, which I'd argue isn't nearly as harmful. The framing of social media as something that's inherently bad no matter how you do it is a framing that helps social media giants like YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to continue to "do it" in a way that harms people. I'm sure they love the idea that the ills of social media can be solved by banning their least profitable users while doing nothing to regulate what they do with the others. They're probably thrilled that their healthier algorithm-free competitors haven't even entered the conversation. They want to be the tobacco companies of the future, because making addictive things for adults is incredibly profitable.

FpUser 10mo ago

>"You probably know that social media is no longer about free speech, It’s a targeted advertising machine" Youtube for one is an advertising machine. On the other hand it is one of the few places where one can find some amazing educational and entertainment content. Prohibiting it I think is a crime. Besides, lately Politicians stick their noses everywhere. It is just way too much.

osn9363739 10mo ago
It's not banned for under 16s, they just can't sign up.
- DocTomoe 10mo ago
  Which means they also do no longer benefit from family-grouped Youtube Premium, which means MORE ADS ... which is exactly what we tried to prevent, right?
  - osn9363739 10mo ago
    The main target of these bans algorithmic content curation and the addictive nature of such algorithms and the possible harmful content that could be presented. So no?
    - tigroferoce 10mo ago
      Maybe that instead of protesting against the regulation we should ask the platforms to provide ads-free and algorithm-free service to kids under 16.
      - fireflash38 10mo ago
        Interesting. I don't know if you intended it, but algorithm free means no recommendations to me - even no recommended videos alongside existing videos. You want a video? You have to search for something. I think that is a surprisingly good solution. You can still access educational information, or really whatever videos you want, but you have to actively seek them out rather than ingest whatever is spit out at you.
        osn9363739 10mo ago
        I've used plugins like unhook in the past which do exactly this and it's nice. Now I just follow channels via rss and block everything else on the page. Same deal.
        mat_b 10mo ago
        Search results are pretty much the same thing though. It's a ranked list of recommended videos. It's just based on your text instead of the video you're watching.
      - osn9363739 10mo ago
        I'd support that.
    - fogj094j0923j4 10mo ago
      Yeah but content curation ( e.g. building your own Alrogrithm TM ) is the only way you get out of the advertisement hell of Youtube. Browsing Youtube on Incognito and your feeds filled with Mr Beast and Tryphobia AI Generated contents.
      - eimrine 10mo ago
  - Gigachad 10mo ago
    YouTube just needs to create a kids account feature which can’t post or comment.
    - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
      They already have that. Youtube Kids. And it works horribly because apparently Family Guy counts as "for kids". And that's not even the tip of the iceberg on the problems presented. Tech is trying to push all these wonderful LLM's on us, telling us how it works like magic. Meanwhile, it can't even follow basic public TV labeling.
      - Gigachad 10mo ago
        Youtube kids is designed for toddlers, and should probably be shut down entirely. What I'm talking about is something designed for 14 year olds where they can still subscribe to channels, have paid ad free, parental controls, etc. But not upload videos or use it in a social media way.
        eimrine 10mo ago
        Youtube (regular one) is already designed to be kids-friendly. There are no war images since recent AI moderation rollout. There are a lot of very forbidden words which can lead to ban account. There are a lot of mildly forbidden words which just do not appear in subtitle. You can not say anything bully on comments - it will be removed instantly. I don't consider anything bad in YT except of the whole top of popular bloggers - because they are clearly aimed at low-IQ people. Just don't be a stupid, and your kids will not watch the bloggers. Buy more instruments of all kinds for your kids and they will watch a lot of educational videos explaining different know-hows.

devmor 10mo ago

Why do we have to ban networked communication for teens instead of regulating it? Nearly everything about it that’s bad for teens also sucks for the rest of us.

sardon 10mo ago
hey they can still use networked communication - e.g. whatsapp, signal, etc. This ban is only concerning the following services Facebook Instagram Threads Kick Reddit Snapchat TikTok Twitch X (formerly Twitter) YouTube
- DocTomoe 10mo ago
  First they came for Facebook, and I didn't protest, I was not on facebook. Here's what's going to happen next: Whatsapp/signal/telegram groups will become wildly popular. Which gives the wannabe-fascists the excuse to ban those as well 'for the children'. We've seen this salami tactic often enough to know the pattern.
  - SiempreViernes 10mo ago
    You are too modest! You should start your poem denouncing those pesky spam filters than hinders the honest viagra pill salesmen! Then you could regret your inaction when google downweighted zit-popping videos, and maybe you have reached the point where it becomes reasonable to regret losing Facebook the genocide facilitator.
    - DocTomoe 10mo ago
      There is a qualitative distinction between 'I filter for myself what I don't want to see' and 'The State decides what everyone is allowed to see.' Not too sure about those zit-popping videos. But in my time, we had rotten.com - so I might be immunized to that kind of stuff. Personally, I find a honest zit-popping video no worse than yet another AI voice going on and on about some non-topic, clearly written by AI as well. I don't seek out either, but the zit-popping at least is over after 10 seconds. But that's Google curating content. State censorship is something else entirely. Once justified "for the children" or "for security", it never stops at the first target. It grows, layer by layer. We’ve watched that pattern repeat for centuries across every medium humans have ever invented. Facebook, the genocide facilitator? If we are honest, so has the printing press. Let's ban letters, they have facilitated genocide. The printing press spread enlightenment, propaganda, revolutions, and atrocities. The State tried to control that too. It failed every time. It will fail with the net, for young people and for old ones. Repression never works long-term, it always creates pressure that eventually breaks the system that produced it. Historically, societies tend to get worse before they correct themselves, because authoritarian overreach generates exactly the instability it claims to prevent. Jefferson’s warning about the recurring need to renew freedom wasn’t a call for violence - it was an observation about the cyclical nature of power, repression, and reform. Every attempt to restrict communication has eventually collapsed under its own contradictions, and the internet will be no exception.

bongodongobob 10mo ago

It is a targeted advertising machine, that is one of its functions. I also don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't think the government has any businesses banning speech either. I also don't believe they want to "save the children".

enaaem 10mo ago

Biggest problem of social media is the addictive effects. It’s a dopamine creation machine. Hopefully people will see it like alcohol and cigarettes in the future.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

>Why can we ban those and not this? we didn't ban cigarettes, we disincentivized them. Why can't we do the same here? regulate the algorithms, not the platform (the platform ultimately being "the internet"). This is just a cat and mouse game where every few years the government will ban whatever the kids like. That's not how you create a high trust society.

nonfamous 10mo ago
In the US, all persons under 21 are banned from purchasing cigarettes.
- Fnoord 10mo ago
  How popular is vaping under teens in USA?
raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
Yes we disincentivized cigarettes. But now both illegal drug use and legal weed use is up - win? https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2024/08/cannabis-and-hallucinogen-use-among-adults-remained-at-historic-highs-in-2023 https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2024/08/canna...
- Nursie 10mo ago
  Comparatively, sure. I don't think either of those are as addictive or as deadly as tobacco use.
  - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
    Citations? It’s not that I have an opinion either way. Having anything that messes with my lungs is something I don’t touch. Not that I’m a health nut. But I have been a gym addict for over 30 years.
    - Nursie 10mo ago

rossy 10mo ago

> It’s a targeted advertising machine that is extremely effective on kids and teenagers. It preys on them so, so efficiently. It’s a technical work of art. A young mind is extremely susceptible to the algorithms on those platforms. Much more than adults are, and adults are already really susceptible. Sure, but the Australian government's definition of an age-restricted social media platform doesn't mention advertising or algorithms at all. Technically, their definition also covers algorithm-free social media like Mastodon, which I'd argue isn't nearly as harmful. The framing of social media as something that's inherently bad no matter how you do it is a framing that helps social media giants like YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to continue to "do it" in a way that harms people. I'm sure they love the idea that the ills of social media can be solved by banning their least profitable users while doing nothing to regulate what they do with the others. They're probably thrilled that their healthier algorithm-free competitors haven't even entered the conversation. They want to be the tobacco companies of the future, because making addictive things for adults is incredibly profitable.