5 ms·

I fully support this legislation, and government regulation around this topic. Given the current (2025) state of the social media landscape, I believe that the

by ropable 10mo ago

I fully support this legislation, and government regulation around this topic. Given the current (2025) state of the social media landscape, I believe that the positives of restricting access to them for teenagers well outweighs any potential harms. As the parent of a teenager affected by this ban (plus one who has aged past it): I wish that it had been in place 8-10 years ago, before either of my kids got smartphones. We tried to be reasonably conservative in their introduction to devices and social media, on the rationale that it would do them no harm to delay using those for a couple of years through their early brain development. The real difficulty turned out to be the network effect of their peers having access to social media, which increased the social pressure (and corresponding social exclusion) to be online. Not having access to Snapchat/Discord/etc. at that point meant that they were effectively out-group, which is a Big Deal for a teenager. We ended up allowing them onto social media platforms earlier than we'd have liked but imposed other controls (time and space restrictions, an expectation of parental audits, etc.) These controls were imperfect, and the usual issues occurred. My assessment is that it was a net negative for the mental health of one child and neutral for the other. I realise that HN is primarily a US forum and skews small-government and free-speech-absolutist. I'm not interested in getting in a debate with anyone about this - my view is that most social media is a net negative with a disproportionate harm to the mental health of non-fully-developed teenage brains. This represents a powerful collective-action failure that is unrealistic to expect individuals to manage, so it's up to government to step in. All boundaries are arbitrary, so the age of 16 (plus this set of apps) seems like a reasonable set of restrictions to me. I am unmoved by the various "slippery slope" arguments I've read here: all rules are mutable, and if we see a problem/overreach later - we'll deal with it in the same way, by consensus and change.

akersten 10mo ago
So, you haven't identified any actual problems with them being on social media though. For example, were this lament that parenting is hard written 50 years ago: > As the parent of a teenager affected by this ban (plus one who has aged past it): I wish that it had been in place 8-10 years ago, before either of my kids got introduced to Rock n' Roll. We tried to be reasonably conservative in their introduction to music and lyrics, on the rationale that it would do them no harm to delay using those for a couple of years through their early brain development. The real difficulty turned out to be the network effect of their peers having access to Rock n' Roll, which increased the social pressure (and corresponding social exclusion) to be dealing with vinyl. Not having access to The Stones, AC/DC, etc. at that point meant that they were effectively out-group, which is a Big Deal for a teenager. > We ended up allowing them a radio earlier than we'd have liked but imposed other controls (time and space restrictions, an expectation of parental audits, etc.) These controls were imperfect, and the usual issues occurred. My assessment is that it was a net negative for the mental health of one child and neutral for the other. I'm being a bit facetious here but my point is that everyone who is in support of this kind of Parenting-as-a-Service is not identifying any real issue the government should concern itself with. Just that kids are doing something new and sometimes scary and gosh it's just hard being a parent when they don't listen.
- AuthAuth 10mo ago
  Its not parenting as a service. Its not even in the same world as rock in roll. Do you think its ok to have smoking, gambling and sex ads shown on tv during the afterschool 3pm-5pm timeslot? Social media is effectively that x100 because TV ads followed advertising restrictions. On social media kids will be subjected to undisclosed advertising for all kinds of products legal and illegal. They will be directly targeted and manipulated into real world harm situations and mental manipulation into harmful mindsets. Most of this cannot be prevented by "being a watchful parent". If your kid watches andrew tate and you see and put a restriction youtube will recommend them a tate adjacent channel or one of the 1million alts that posts clips. Same for tiktok, X and Instagram.The only control you have is to ban them from using the platform which is a roundabout way of achieving the same thing.
  - eimrine 10mo ago
    Being a watchful parent is neither required nor enough. Being a witful parent is another thing. Try not to ban some digital goolags but to show the real beauty of the world which makes these disservices looking miserable in teen's eyes.
- ropable 10mo ago
  Sigh, I'll bite (even though I know I shouldn't, and it's pointless). > So, you haven't identified any actual problems with them being on social media Anonymous cyber bullying (multiple times), performative social exclusion (multiple times), anonymous death threats (twice), deepfake porn with their faces spliced in (twice). Your straw-man example is absurd and TBH it comes across as patronising. I'm trying to avoid assumptions, but it reads like someone who hasn't needed to grapple with this issue personally as a primary carer. Apologies if that isn't the case; everyone has their own view for what parenting should be. Somehow we've seen fit (as a society) to regulate the minimum age for sex & marriage, obtaining alcohol, acquiring a vehicle licence, etc. We (as a society) recognise that there are good & bad tradeoffs to these activities and have regulated freedoms around these (primarily via age). Somehow, our society hasn't spontaneously regressed into North Korea.
- h4ny 10mo ago
Andrew_nenakhov 10mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway77385 10mo ago
  Broadly, I agree with your sentiment. As soon as some people rule over others, given enough time, things creep towards total enslavement and disenfranchisement of the others. This has been proven over and over. The question then becomes, how do we organise society instead?
- LadyCailin 10mo ago
  YOUR government might be a bigger threat than anything YOU might find online, but this statement is just not generally true whatsoever. Given how broad this argument is, if anything, it’s an argument for improving government, not getting rid of it. Every freedom has two sides, the more positive freedoms you get, the less negative freedoms you get, and vice versa. There is no possibility of “infinite freedom”, it’s always zero sum, and so always a balance on a per topic basis, which hyperreductive arguments like this (“state level infringements of freedom”) totally ignore.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 10mo ago
    Right now the government in question is Australian, and I personally wouldn't trust the government which would force citizens to compulsory wear of masks outdoors and alone in cars.
    - bspammer 10mo ago
      No one in my government has ever done as much harm to me as the people who share your opinion about taking reasonable measures to stop the spread of a deadly disease. The slippery slope claims by the anti-mask people have entirely failed to materialise, yet millions died needlessly. Far more people (including myself) were permanently damaged by getting covid before the vaccine.
      - 10mo ago
fortydegrees 10mo ago
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I strongly disagree with this legislation and have found it hard to 'steelman' the other side, which your comment/opinion does well. I found it very informative so just wanted to share my appreciation for you posting it here.
grvdrm 10mo ago
Did you also find the intro negative for your own mental health in the sense that you had to bother thinking at all about it? Feels like a huge component to me as a parent. What do I now need to know and do and react to, and how does my behavior affect the mental health of my kids.

by ropable 10mo ago

akersten 10mo ago

So, you haven't identified any actual problems with them being on social media though. For example, were this lament that parenting is hard written 50 years ago: > As the parent of a teenager affected by this ban (plus one who has aged past it): I wish that it had been in place 8-10 years ago, before either of my kids got introduced to Rock n' Roll. We tried to be reasonably conservative in their introduction to music and lyrics, on the rationale that it would do them no harm to delay using those for a couple of years through their early brain development. The real difficulty turned out to be the network effect of their peers having access to Rock n' Roll, which increased the social pressure (and corresponding social exclusion) to be dealing with vinyl. Not having access to The Stones, AC/DC, etc. at that point meant that they were effectively out-group, which is a Big Deal for a teenager. > We ended up allowing them a radio earlier than we'd have liked but imposed other controls (time and space restrictions, an expectation of parental audits, etc.) These controls were imperfect, and the usual issues occurred. My assessment is that it was a net negative for the mental health of one child and neutral for the other. I'm being a bit facetious here but my point is that everyone who is in support of this kind of Parenting-as-a-Service is not identifying any real issue the government should concern itself with. Just that kids are doing something new and sometimes scary and gosh it's just hard being a parent when they don't listen.

AuthAuth 10mo ago
Its not parenting as a service. Its not even in the same world as rock in roll. Do you think its ok to have smoking, gambling and sex ads shown on tv during the afterschool 3pm-5pm timeslot? Social media is effectively that x100 because TV ads followed advertising restrictions. On social media kids will be subjected to undisclosed advertising for all kinds of products legal and illegal. They will be directly targeted and manipulated into real world harm situations and mental manipulation into harmful mindsets. Most of this cannot be prevented by "being a watchful parent". If your kid watches andrew tate and you see and put a restriction youtube will recommend them a tate adjacent channel or one of the 1million alts that posts clips. Same for tiktok, X and Instagram.The only control you have is to ban them from using the platform which is a roundabout way of achieving the same thing.
- eimrine 10mo ago
  Being a watchful parent is neither required nor enough. Being a witful parent is another thing. Try not to ban some digital goolags but to show the real beauty of the world which makes these disservices looking miserable in teen's eyes.
ropable 10mo ago
Sigh, I'll bite (even though I know I shouldn't, and it's pointless). > So, you haven't identified any actual problems with them being on social media Anonymous cyber bullying (multiple times), performative social exclusion (multiple times), anonymous death threats (twice), deepfake porn with their faces spliced in (twice). Your straw-man example is absurd and TBH it comes across as patronising. I'm trying to avoid assumptions, but it reads like someone who hasn't needed to grapple with this issue personally as a primary carer. Apologies if that isn't the case; everyone has their own view for what parenting should be. Somehow we've seen fit (as a society) to regulate the minimum age for sex & marriage, obtaining alcohol, acquiring a vehicle licence, etc. We (as a society) recognise that there are good & bad tradeoffs to these activities and have regulated freedoms around these (primarily via age). Somehow, our society hasn't spontaneously regressed into North Korea.
h4ny 10mo ago

Andrew_nenakhov 10mo ago

[flagged]

throwaway77385 10mo ago
Broadly, I agree with your sentiment. As soon as some people rule over others, given enough time, things creep towards total enslavement and disenfranchisement of the others. This has been proven over and over. The question then becomes, how do we organise society instead?
LadyCailin 10mo ago
YOUR government might be a bigger threat than anything YOU might find online, but this statement is just not generally true whatsoever. Given how broad this argument is, if anything, it’s an argument for improving government, not getting rid of it. Every freedom has two sides, the more positive freedoms you get, the less negative freedoms you get, and vice versa. There is no possibility of “infinite freedom”, it’s always zero sum, and so always a balance on a per topic basis, which hyperreductive arguments like this (“state level infringements of freedom”) totally ignore.
- Andrew_nenakhov 10mo ago
  Right now the government in question is Australian, and I personally wouldn't trust the government which would force citizens to compulsory wear of masks outdoors and alone in cars.
  - bspammer 10mo ago
    No one in my government has ever done as much harm to me as the people who share your opinion about taking reasonable measures to stop the spread of a deadly disease. The slippery slope claims by the anti-mask people have entirely failed to materialise, yet millions died needlessly. Far more people (including myself) were permanently damaged by getting covid before the vaccine.
    - 10mo ago

fortydegrees 10mo ago

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I strongly disagree with this legislation and have found it hard to 'steelman' the other side, which your comment/opinion does well. I found it very informative so just wanted to share my appreciation for you posting it here.

grvdrm 10mo ago

Did you also find the intro negative for your own mental health in the sense that you had to bother thinking at all about it? Feels like a huge component to me as a parent. What do I now need to know and do and react to, and how does my behavior affect the mental health of my kids.