4 ms·

> The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Just last week there was uproar becaus

> The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Just last week there was uproar because Discord was going to require age verification to join adult themed servers and bypass content filters. This is how people are getting baited into inviting these restrictions and regulations into their services: By believing it’s necessary to hurt their enemies like Mark Zuckerberg combined with “think of the children”. It’s still sad to these calls for extensive regulation and oversight getting upvoted so much on Hacker News. Every time you see someone calling for regulation for kids online, remember that the only way to tell kids and adults apart is to force everyone to go through age verification. Before you start thinking that you don’t care because you don’t use social media, remember that you are reading this on a social media site. The laws aren’t going to care about whether or not you think Hacker News qualifies as social media.

mrsssnake 9mo ago
The only way to get rid of domestic abusers in your neighbor is to detonate an atomic bomb at the town center.
raincole 9mo ago
I wonder if one day when people hear "censored internet" the first country that comes to mind will be a western one (probably the UK, but the US is not off the table either) instead of China.
- nephihaha 9mo ago
  It already does for me because I live here. Keir Starmer is desperately unpopular and yet he wants to suppress why people do hate him. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-least-popular-uk-prime-minister-poll/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-leas...
  - u02sgb 9mo ago
    The existence of that article surely suggests there is no censorship of the information about his unpopularity?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - nephihaha 9mo ago
      Please see elsewhere on HN. Lots of threads about the increasing crackdown on free expression online in the UK, and forcing through digital ID online (alongside the EU, Canada, Australia etc).
  - iamacyborg 9mo ago
    Linking to the paper colloquially known as the Torygraph to make your point is rather amusing. Seems like we just look at all politicians rather unfavourably right now: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53907-political-favourability-ratings-january-2026 https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53907-political-favou...
    - nephihaha 9mo ago
      Keir Starmer is deeply unpopular and I have not encountered anyone who likes him (including a lifelong Labour member who has stood for them). Last time I said that about Starmer someone complained there was no link. Now people are complaining about the link. For the record, I have never voted for the Tories ever. A plague on both their houses... There isn't even a cigarette paper between Labour and Tory policies these days — oppress the poor and needy, censor, mismanage everything and enact NGO advice.
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  Why would it have to be a single country or hemisphere? If it's happening globally we'll stop thinking of it as a regional think and start thinking of it as a global problem. It is weird to see all of these HN comments demanding such regulations and the continued belief that it won't impact us, it will only impact sites we don't like. Even after the Discord fallout from last week.
- throwerefg 9mo ago
  [dead]
rkangel 9mo ago
Which step in this logic do you not accept? When profit for a company is in conflict with human good, regulation is needed (e.g. health and safety rules) Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people Meta is aware of this, but due to a profit motive does not take serious steps to do anything about it (only token efforts) Meta (and other social media) needs regulation
- blululu 9mo ago
  As the sister comment to this makes clear: regulation is needed in this area but that specific bill has a ton of problems. We should rewrite it and remove the more privacy infringing aspects.
- mrsssnake 9mo ago
  Some regulation yes, throwing information agnostic universal global packet switching network in the trash bin is not the way.
- jacobsimon 9mo ago
  > Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people I think I disagree with this step. Facebook causes a kind of indirect harm here, and is used willingly by teens and parents, who could simply choose not to use it. That's different from, say, a factory polluting a river with toxic chemicals, which needs government regulation. Basically "negative externalities".
  - rkangel 9mo ago
    > who could simply choose not to use it There is an inherently addicting aspect to it though - carefully evolved over the years by optimising for "engagement". One (imperfect) analogy is gambling - anyone can in theory choose not to gamble, but for some people addiction gets in the way and they don't make the choice that can be good for them. So (in the UK) the gambling industry is regulated in terms of how it advertises and what it needs to provide in terms of helping people stop. I don't know if this particular regulation is in anyway effective, but I do think that some regulation is appropriate.
dfxm12 9mo ago
The uproar was specifically about the implemented ID checks. KOSA hasn't been passed in any form & its most recent forms introduced to the House & Senate don't include ID checks. To imply that KOSA includes some kind of ID check or that the only way to provide any type of protections is via an ID check is ignorant.
- hrimfaxi 9mo ago
  The full text is here for the interested: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1748/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/174...
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  Ignorant? Hardly. It's ignorant to assume anything but the worst from proposed regulation until proven otherwise. Particularly if past proposals from the same people included ID checks. It falls to the people proposing regulation to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good. (Spoiler, they usually are up to no good.)
  - dfxm12 9mo ago
    It's awfully convenient that you require others to prove or clearly demonstrate things, while you allow yourself to merely assume things :) I know you've already made up your mind, but just humor me. What can the government do to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good?
    - m4nu3l 9mo ago
      It's not just about intentions. To convince me that the Government can improve things through regulations, you'd need to do a few things: 1) You must convince me that optimising for some utility function you defined is the right thing to do. 2) You must convince me that the Government can effectively estimate the utility function. 3) Finally, you must convince me that the Government can predict how the utility function will change after the policies are implemented. For 1) I'd have problems with any utility function you could come up with. If you want to maximise total utility, for instance, does it mean that I get to assault someone as long as I gain more utility than the other person loses? What about the "Utility Monster" thought experiment? For 2) and 3), I'm pretty sure the Government has no idea of how to measure and/or predict the result. Does the scrolling addiction of a teenager cause more loss in utility than the loss of friends to a teenager with disabilities? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-lost-my-friends-advocacy-groups-warn-australias-social-media-ban-risks-isolating-kids-with-disabilities https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-l... Because of these basic philosophical principles, the burden of proof that some regulation is required is always on the Government side, and the standard of proof should be much higher than it is today. I don't believe that the concept of utility is entirely useless, though. I believe that by respecting people's individual freedoms and allowing for voluntary arrangements, you'll also get more utility in the long term, whereas if you try to force your utility optimisations, you might, maybe, get utility increases in the short term, but much worse utility in the longer term.
xg15 9mo ago
So then, what should be done instead?

mrsssnake 9mo ago

The only way to get rid of domestic abusers in your neighbor is to detonate an atomic bomb at the town center.

raincole 9mo ago

I wonder if one day when people hear "censored internet" the first country that comes to mind will be a western one (probably the UK, but the US is not off the table either) instead of China.

nephihaha 9mo ago
It already does for me because I live here. Keir Starmer is desperately unpopular and yet he wants to suppress why people do hate him. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-least-popular-uk-prime-minister-poll/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-leas...
- u02sgb 9mo ago
  The existence of that article surely suggests there is no censorship of the information about his unpopularity?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nephihaha 9mo ago
    Please see elsewhere on HN. Lots of threads about the increasing crackdown on free expression online in the UK, and forcing through digital ID online (alongside the EU, Canada, Australia etc).
- iamacyborg 9mo ago
  Linking to the paper colloquially known as the Torygraph to make your point is rather amusing. Seems like we just look at all politicians rather unfavourably right now: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53907-political-favourability-ratings-january-2026 https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53907-political-favou...
  - nephihaha 9mo ago
    Keir Starmer is deeply unpopular and I have not encountered anyone who likes him (including a lifelong Labour member who has stood for them). Last time I said that about Starmer someone complained there was no link. Now people are complaining about the link. For the record, I have never voted for the Tories ever. A plague on both their houses... There isn't even a cigarette paper between Labour and Tory policies these days — oppress the poor and needy, censor, mismanage everything and enact NGO advice.
Aurornis 9mo ago
Why would it have to be a single country or hemisphere? If it's happening globally we'll stop thinking of it as a regional think and start thinking of it as a global problem. It is weird to see all of these HN comments demanding such regulations and the continued belief that it won't impact us, it will only impact sites we don't like. Even after the Discord fallout from last week.
throwerefg 9mo ago
[dead]

rkangel 9mo ago

Which step in this logic do you not accept? When profit for a company is in conflict with human good, regulation is needed (e.g. health and safety rules) Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people Meta is aware of this, but due to a profit motive does not take serious steps to do anything about it (only token efforts) Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

blululu 9mo ago
As the sister comment to this makes clear: regulation is needed in this area but that specific bill has a ton of problems. We should rewrite it and remove the more privacy infringing aspects.
mrsssnake 9mo ago
Some regulation yes, throwing information agnostic universal global packet switching network in the trash bin is not the way.
jacobsimon 9mo ago
> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people I think I disagree with this step. Facebook causes a kind of indirect harm here, and is used willingly by teens and parents, who could simply choose not to use it. That's different from, say, a factory polluting a river with toxic chemicals, which needs government regulation. Basically "negative externalities".
- rkangel 9mo ago
  > who could simply choose not to use it There is an inherently addicting aspect to it though - carefully evolved over the years by optimising for "engagement". One (imperfect) analogy is gambling - anyone can in theory choose not to gamble, but for some people addiction gets in the way and they don't make the choice that can be good for them. So (in the UK) the gambling industry is regulated in terms of how it advertises and what it needs to provide in terms of helping people stop. I don't know if this particular regulation is in anyway effective, but I do think that some regulation is appropriate.

dfxm12 9mo ago

The uproar was specifically about the implemented ID checks. KOSA hasn't been passed in any form & its most recent forms introduced to the House & Senate don't include ID checks. To imply that KOSA includes some kind of ID check or that the only way to provide any type of protections is via an ID check is ignorant.

hrimfaxi 9mo ago
The full text is here for the interested: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1748/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/174...
fc417fc802 9mo ago
Ignorant? Hardly. It's ignorant to assume anything but the worst from proposed regulation until proven otherwise. Particularly if past proposals from the same people included ID checks. It falls to the people proposing regulation to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good. (Spoiler, they usually are up to no good.)
- dfxm12 9mo ago
  It's awfully convenient that you require others to prove or clearly demonstrate things, while you allow yourself to merely assume things :) I know you've already made up your mind, but just humor me. What can the government do to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good?
  - m4nu3l 9mo ago
    It's not just about intentions. To convince me that the Government can improve things through regulations, you'd need to do a few things: 1) You must convince me that optimising for some utility function you defined is the right thing to do. 2) You must convince me that the Government can effectively estimate the utility function. 3) Finally, you must convince me that the Government can predict how the utility function will change after the policies are implemented. For 1) I'd have problems with any utility function you could come up with. If you want to maximise total utility, for instance, does it mean that I get to assault someone as long as I gain more utility than the other person loses? What about the "Utility Monster" thought experiment? For 2) and 3), I'm pretty sure the Government has no idea of how to measure and/or predict the result. Does the scrolling addiction of a teenager cause more loss in utility than the loss of friends to a teenager with disabilities? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-lost-my-friends-advocacy-groups-warn-australias-social-media-ban-risks-isolating-kids-with-disabilities https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-l... Because of these basic philosophical principles, the burden of proof that some regulation is required is always on the Government side, and the standard of proof should be much higher than it is today. I don't believe that the concept of utility is entirely useless, though. I believe that by respecting people's individual freedoms and allowing for voluntary arrangements, you'll also get more utility in the long term, whereas if you try to force your utility optimisations, you might, maybe, get utility increases in the short term, but much worse utility in the longer term.

xg15 9mo ago

So then, what should be done instead?