2 ms·

Casual calls for banning children from social media are becoming common, even here on HN. The people demanding these bans always assume that the bans will clean

by Aurornis 11mo ago

Casual calls for banning children from social media are becoming common, even here on HN. The people demanding these bans always assume that the bans will cleanly apply only to sites they don’t use or don’t like, as if only Facebook and TikTok will be impacted. This proposed amendment shows exactly why this entire concept is problematic. The definition of social media site is this: > by regulations made my statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users. Now imagine all of the user-to-user services you use on the internet: Hacker News, Discord, Signal, any messaging app, the comment section on your favorite news websites. Even Wikipedia is a user-to-user website. The second point that people calling for heavy regulation neglect is that the only way to keep under-16s out of these websites is to enforce age verification on everyone who visits the website. So HN would require ID verification, and Discord, and your messaging apps. I always see ideas about creating age verification services that don’t disclose ID information, but a key part of age verification is confirming (as reasonably possible) that the person presenting the ID with the age on it is the same person who is trying to use the service. The same reason a 16 year old can’t walk into a liquor store with their mom’s ID is going to be applied to these age checks, requiring that the sites make an effort to associate an ID with the user. Otherwise, kids are smart and will borrow their parents or older friends’ IDs or even use online black market services if there are no negative consequences for sharing IDs that perform anonymous age checks. Associating IDs with user accounts is a key part of age check legislation.

PunchyHamster 11mo ago
"Internet bad, and as parents we don't really want to be parenting, that's extra work, therefore ban" stance
- everdrive 11mo ago
  I'm not sure why we give kids smart phones and laptops. This is actually unavoidable. Your school will give your kid a laptop, even if you prohibit it at home. Imagine being 14 and having an entire laptop to prevent you from ever needing to focus in class. I never would have managed it.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    Probably because computers are and have been a fundamental part of living in society for decades now. I had a laptop in school at that age. I managed it.
    - everdrive 11mo ago
      Kids get ChromeOS and learn how to navigate their school's UI. They're not learning computing. They're given a math question which could have been on a piece of paper or in book.
      - squigz 11mo ago
        This seems like a really narrow perspective on kids' use of computers in schools, but even if that's the case, it seems to me the solution might be to... teach them computing, not take it away. Or, we might recognize that there's lots of technology we don't learn the ins-and-outs of and yet that are fundamental to our lives, even if we could technically get by without it Anyway, I would think that having a simple, locked-down OS at school is preferable than having a laptop on which they can do whatever they want, at least to the issue of being distracted in class. Also, a related comment points out that not all is doom-and-gloom - surprisingly, schools can actually implement sane usage restrictions for laptops in class.
        everdrive 11mo ago
        >Anyway, I would think that having a simple, locked-down OS at school is preferable than having a laptop on which they can do whatever they want, at least to the issue of being distracted in class. This may be true, but even more preferable than this would be no laptop.
        immibis 11mo ago
        "computing" is not what today's internet is about. I think you'd actually have more success teaching computing if the internet was turned off.
      - 11mo ago
- 4gotunameagain 11mo ago
  Let's make drugs free and available on every corner then ? Surely that will make us better parents, we'll have to work harder.
  - wavemode 11mo ago
    wildly false dichotomy if you're a parent and you don't want your kids to do something, the answer is to supervise them. should hot stoves and sharp knives require inserting an ID for age verification?
    - lucraft 11mo ago
      It's not a wildly false dichotomy. It's hyperbolic, sure, but the broad point that there are things that parents find hard to parent for reasons, and society should think about helping them out, is 100% true.
      - wavemode 11mo ago
        it's a false dichotomy because it implies that the only two options we have are either draconian regulation, or no regulation whatsoever. that's the dictionary definition of a false dichotomy.
        immibis 11mo ago
        The other side is a false dichotomy because it implies the only options we have are either blame parents or do nothing.
        wavemode 11mo ago
        I never argued that we do nothing. There are plenty of laws on the books related to internet safety, and plenty more that we could pass. What I'm specifically against is mandating ID verification.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  A lot of the calls for bans are coming from non-parents. There’s a full moral panic going on about social media and short form videos right now.
- lucraft 11mo ago
  It's a coordination problem. I can "parent" my kids by banning them from social media sure, but if the other parents don't also do that, then I just made my kid a social outcast. As it is we have to allow our eldest a lot more screen and social media time than we think is healthy, but it's more healthy than not having any friends. I'm not necessarily in favour of a government ban, but I do wish more parents were on board. At the primary school (age 10) 100% of other kids had phones, and no one else seemed to give a shit.
- immibis 11mo ago
  Your stance is one of those thought-terminating stances. It's not as if parents somehow have more control over their children than the entire world. Yes, they may have a plurality of the influence - they are the single most influential factor - but it doesn't outweigh the entire rest of the world. Plus, what are you going to say about children of people who aren't very good at parenting? Do they deserve to grow up addicted to dopamine and groomed into fascism? Or should we try to help them too? I don't like the solution of age verification on every social media website, but the problem is real and must be solved if we want the future to be any good.
vnchr 11mo ago
Because it gives governments authority to pick and choose which sites to ban or allow, it’s a mechanism that can accommodate political coercion and subterfuge. The platforms can now be de-platformed. It’s no longer user-to-user websites, its user-to government-to-user.
GuB-42 11mo ago
I always find it ironic when people complain about social media on social media, drawing some arbitrary line on what is social media (implied to be bad) and what is not (implied to be good). I would also add GitHub and StackOverflow to the list of social media, they have user-to-user interaction and a visible reputation system with gamification. Stretch things a bit and you could even include email. IRC and USENET too of course. The only time I have seen something sensible was is I think a proposal in a US state, where the social media the ruling is about is clearly defined. I think it has to have user interaction, a personalized algorithmic feed, and a number of specific patterns, such as infinite scroll, essentially Facebook, TikTok, Instagram,... but not Reddit or Hacker News. The good think about that is that the social media in question could "work around" the ruling by stripping off some dark patterns, I would consider it a win should it happen.

PunchyHamster 11mo ago

"Internet bad, and as parents we don't really want to be parenting, that's extra work, therefore ban" stance

everdrive 11mo ago
I'm not sure why we give kids smart phones and laptops. This is actually unavoidable. Your school will give your kid a laptop, even if you prohibit it at home. Imagine being 14 and having an entire laptop to prevent you from ever needing to focus in class. I never would have managed it.
- squigz 11mo ago
  Probably because computers are and have been a fundamental part of living in society for decades now. I had a laptop in school at that age. I managed it.
  - everdrive 11mo ago
    Kids get ChromeOS and learn how to navigate their school's UI. They're not learning computing. They're given a math question which could have been on a piece of paper or in book.
    - squigz 11mo ago
      This seems like a really narrow perspective on kids' use of computers in schools, but even if that's the case, it seems to me the solution might be to... teach them computing, not take it away. Or, we might recognize that there's lots of technology we don't learn the ins-and-outs of and yet that are fundamental to our lives, even if we could technically get by without it Anyway, I would think that having a simple, locked-down OS at school is preferable than having a laptop on which they can do whatever they want, at least to the issue of being distracted in class. Also, a related comment points out that not all is doom-and-gloom - surprisingly, schools can actually implement sane usage restrictions for laptops in class.
      - everdrive 11mo ago
        >Anyway, I would think that having a simple, locked-down OS at school is preferable than having a laptop on which they can do whatever they want, at least to the issue of being distracted in class. This may be true, but even more preferable than this would be no laptop.
      - immibis 11mo ago
        "computing" is not what today's internet is about. I think you'd actually have more success teaching computing if the internet was turned off.
    - 11mo ago
4gotunameagain 11mo ago
Let's make drugs free and available on every corner then ? Surely that will make us better parents, we'll have to work harder.
- wavemode 11mo ago
  wildly false dichotomy if you're a parent and you don't want your kids to do something, the answer is to supervise them. should hot stoves and sharp knives require inserting an ID for age verification?
  - lucraft 11mo ago
    It's not a wildly false dichotomy. It's hyperbolic, sure, but the broad point that there are things that parents find hard to parent for reasons, and society should think about helping them out, is 100% true.
    - wavemode 11mo ago
      it's a false dichotomy because it implies that the only two options we have are either draconian regulation, or no regulation whatsoever. that's the dictionary definition of a false dichotomy.
      - immibis 11mo ago
        The other side is a false dichotomy because it implies the only options we have are either blame parents or do nothing.
        wavemode 11mo ago
        I never argued that we do nothing. There are plenty of laws on the books related to internet safety, and plenty more that we could pass. What I'm specifically against is mandating ID verification.
Aurornis 11mo ago
A lot of the calls for bans are coming from non-parents. There’s a full moral panic going on about social media and short form videos right now.
lucraft 11mo ago
It's a coordination problem. I can "parent" my kids by banning them from social media sure, but if the other parents don't also do that, then I just made my kid a social outcast. As it is we have to allow our eldest a lot more screen and social media time than we think is healthy, but it's more healthy than not having any friends. I'm not necessarily in favour of a government ban, but I do wish more parents were on board. At the primary school (age 10) 100% of other kids had phones, and no one else seemed to give a shit.
immibis 11mo ago
Your stance is one of those thought-terminating stances. It's not as if parents somehow have more control over their children than the entire world. Yes, they may have a plurality of the influence - they are the single most influential factor - but it doesn't outweigh the entire rest of the world. Plus, what are you going to say about children of people who aren't very good at parenting? Do they deserve to grow up addicted to dopamine and groomed into fascism? Or should we try to help them too? I don't like the solution of age verification on every social media website, but the problem is real and must be solved if we want the future to be any good.

vnchr 11mo ago

Because it gives governments authority to pick and choose which sites to ban or allow, it’s a mechanism that can accommodate political coercion and subterfuge. The platforms can now be de-platformed. It’s no longer user-to-user websites, its user-to government-to-user.

GuB-42 11mo ago

I always find it ironic when people complain about social media on social media, drawing some arbitrary line on what is social media (implied to be bad) and what is not (implied to be good). I would also add GitHub and StackOverflow to the list of social media, they have user-to-user interaction and a visible reputation system with gamification. Stretch things a bit and you could even include email. IRC and USENET too of course. The only time I have seen something sensible was is I think a proposal in a US state, where the social media the ruling is about is clearly defined. I think it has to have user interaction, a personalized algorithmic feed, and a number of specific patterns, such as infinite scroll, essentially Facebook, TikTok, Instagram,... but not Reddit or Hacker News. The good think about that is that the social media in question could "work around" the ruling by stripping off some dark patterns, I would consider it a win should it happen.