9 ms·
Social media bans and digital curfews to be trialled on UK teenagers
- elitistphoenix 7mo agoThe UK is turning in the very definition of a nanny and police state under the usual guise of think of the children. And don't get me wrong I'm just all for banning social media entirely.
- pixxel 7mo ago[dead]
- sweezyjeezy 7mo agoI reckon in 20 years most countries will be doing this - the effects of social media on kids is too strong, and too negative to deny at this point. Also in what way is the UK a police state? The amount of police is falling - we're strapped for cash...
- dgxyz 7mo agoEveryone likes to say the UK is a police state. It’s a bit of a meme. I mean we are literally going through legal reform at the moment to make it less of one while people with a masked presidential police force scream at us for being a police state.
- hunterpayne 7mo agoKeep in mind that the UK government is currently locking people up for FB posts. Not exactly a police state but close enough that its a distinction without a difference. Oh, and they are debating if to get rid of jury trials so they can just lock up people for FB posts without a trial. If it quacks like a duck...
- dgxyz 7mo agoThis is paranoid bullshit. Firstly the incumbent legislation is actually being rolled back at the moment by Mahmood. The FB posts are all inciting violence against others which should not be protected speech. As for the jury trials, have you ever been in a jury? I'd rather not thanks myself. My peers are mostly fucking idiots. And they're changing that as well.
- HerbManic 7mo ago20 years seems long to me. I give it less than 5. Just think of what the internet was like in 2006, these things can happen fast.
- ReptileMan 7mo agoI guess imprecise wording. I suppose they mean unholy crossover of Kafqueske and Owellian state.
- ohhman11 7mo ago>the effects of social media on kids is too strong, and too negative to deny at this point. Bold claim that really needs some evidence. Is there research which shows that kids who grow up with social media are less likely to succeed as adults because of social media exposure?
- lmf4lol 7mo agoAre all the news items about people being arrested for exercising speech not true? I‘ve heard from multiple people already that there is a massive prosecution going in the UK against people that say „hateful“ things on the internet. Whereby „hateful“ is vaguely defined but usually in relation to religious feelings. All fake news? Honest question
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- sweezyjeezy 7mo agoHonestly that is happening, and I think it's an overstep. I have never heard anyone talk about this in real life (that could be a London bubble though). I will say - I am nearly 40, and I've spent the last 25 years online reading about the Orwellian hell my life is (or is about to become). It has never felt like it comes from a place of lived experience. For example we infamously have a lot of cameras in the UK. 90% of them are on closed circuits in shops and it doesn't affect anything. Right now the biggest issue in the UK is the same as most places - lack of money. It's killing our services, poisoning our politics. Everything else feels abstract in comparison.
- pjc50 7mo agoMost of those cases turn out to be: - ex-partner disputes involving harassment - actual incitement to violence, like the hotel arson And if you look at the actual convictions, first offense for most things is usually a suspended sentence. I'd be interested to see if you can find a case on bailii (no, not social media, actual court transcripts only) which matches: - first offense custodial sentence - one off post, not a pattern of harassment - between strangers - does not include even implied threats of violence (Last one I can think of was the Robin Hood Airport one, which hinged on whether a joke threat to blow up an airport should have been taken seriously.)
- veltas 7mo agoAs a British teen I concerned my parents a lot with my computer usage, with all they had heard about the dangers of over use. But for me that was an outlet in a pretty miserable childhood and turned into my career, I was programming and learning how stuff worked. I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
- WA 7mo agoYou messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things. Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
- dijit 7mo agoYou walked right into his point. There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers. Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion. FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
- WA 7mo agoTheir point is: for some individuals it can be beneficial. My point is: on a societal level, the numbers are pretty clear that teens consume too much media (and social media is even more addictive) and their skills and attention span deteriorate.
- dijit 7mo agoYou missed it again. The “computers were considered dangerous” means that people generally thought they were dangerous, especially to children.
- dgxyz 7mo agoI already do this with my <16. It’s called parenting. They can use their computer however. That’s fine. It’s the engagement based social media and constant comms via messaging that’s the issue. I find that she doesn’t actually use it all the time and goes and does other stuff like reading and recently drawing and painting.
- thenfcm 7mo agoIf you think youre such a great parent that you or your kid is safe from the insidious danger of social media, I think youre being naive.
- dgxyz 7mo agoI don’t think that at all. I just make sure they get to experience the rest of the world first. Literature, art, music, games, conversation, meeting people in real life, jumping on a plane and going places and seeing things. There’s a lot to do in the world. Social media isn’t very attractive if you go and do those things. I’d you don’t then it becomes a portal to a narrow view of the world and then there is trouble.
- thenfcm 7mo agoWith that I agree. But it comes down as society as a whole to create that environment for children, not individual parenting.
- noja 7mo ago> It’s called parenting. There are multi-billionar dollar industries targeting the attention of your child. Many adults have problems resisting. Are you using any technical measures to limit what they can see or do?
- dgxyz 7mo agoI’ve got three kids, albeit two somewhat older. It’s not a panopticon prison. There’s trust. The social media thing just isn’t a big thing for them. They all use WhatsApp and that’s about it. I mean one has instagram and that’s marketing for part time job while she’s studying. Edit: just asked her and she’s on book 7 this year. That’s a whole lot better for you than doom scrolling.
- hsbauauvhabzb 7mo agoHello yes we would like to invade the privacy of your child in the name of children everywhere
- b112 7mo agoSome seem to support this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47513098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47513098 Which is a platform being fined for not spying on children.
- intended 7mo agoFor some reason, conversations on HN and in tech circles are behind the curve when it comes to social media bans. Most countries are looking at social media bans, and there is a deep groundswell of public opinion against tech today. Yes, in the 90s, tech was the good guy, but today people are frightened and upset with tech companies. This would be less of a problem, if governments globally were not tending towards authoritarianism. Governments are more than happy to appear responsive to voter needs, while also finally getting some form of control over (primarily American) tech firms. As it stands though - safety is a bad word, enshittification is an actual word, and profit seems to be the final word. The Techlash is real, but it doesn’t seem to feature in calculations and discussions on HN. The problem with that is that it just creates a blind spot, and a miscalculation in the energies underlying such drives. The OSINT report from r/linux got more traction, even if it was riddled with issues, giving birth to the belief that this is all driven by Meta. A reading of the same data sits comfortably with Meta simply taking advantage of the macro trends to push onerous burdens onto its competitors. I am sorry for the meta comment, but the blind spot in logic is annoying to me since it results in a mis-estimation of the energies at play here. That in turn means the responses or ideas people have are not calibrated and scaled correctly. People are going to respond to incentives and instigate for their needs to be met. My guess is that if tech invested significantly in customer support and safety, being more responsive to user needs, perhaps the underlying anger can be alleviated. —— Anecdotes: There needs to also be actual signal sharing between safety teams in tech. Same for customer support - Far too many please for help go through slack and WhatsApp. I know of posts on reddit where people are asking for help reporting and taking down NCII found on Instagram/Threads. ideas.
- b112 7mo agoMeta may be manipulating things to try to ensure they don't pay for age verification, but I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence. The very fact that we allow armies of state-actor paid posters to work diligently to undermine the views of our own citizens, and even more important our impressionable children, is beyond bizarre. Advertising works, manipulation works, and in an age where you can make up any story you want, create any visual appearance you want, create any history you want, this sort of manipulation is at an entire new level. There is always more than one reason for any action, but I think a primary for this literal world wide push to add age verification, and eventually identity verification, is because states are finally waking up to the wide-scale manipulation happening on platforms today. States take years and years to make policy change. From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically. What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting. To end or significantly reduce sock-puppetry. Corps like Meta, X, etc would hate this on its own, for an enormous amount of accounts are fake accounts. Realistically, however, it would be a one time correction... Anyhow. Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta. None of this is nefarious, either. An example? Every decade or so every country in the world sends representatives to discuss ... effectively, "roads" and "road safety". One thing they do is, try to make the rules of the road as similar as possible everywhere. An example is, in BC, Canada, a 'flashing green light' used to mean 'pedestrian crossing is active'. I kid you not. Meanwhile in Ontario, it meant 'turn left is OK'. That's not how it works any more. BC now changed that flashing green light, and everywhere has almost completed the 15+ year long migration to an actual left arrow for 'turn left'. Road lines were yellow in Canada most of the time, even in the middle of lanes. The logic was, you can see yellow easier than white, when there is some snow on the ground. Now, all lines tend to be white in Canada. Why? Because they're white everywhere. The goal with road signs, is to have them as pictures, rather than words, and the same everywhere on the planet, so anyone of any language can understand them. This is the sort of generic collaboration that happens in the background constantly. And its sensible, everyone wants tourism, everyone wants drivers to be safer, understand the rules of the road when traveling, and so on. Everyone benefits. So from my perspective, to see all democracies passing laws, I simply see that probably there was a conference somewhere, and everyone discussed it, and thought "yeah, this is a problem".
- thenfcm 7mo agoHalf of me worries about the nanny/surveillance state aspect of this. Half of me wants us to ban it for adults too.
- imiric 7mo agoBanning it is tackling the problem at the wrong end. Social media, and Big Tech in general, should be heavily regulated, and certain behavior strongly fined, including criminal prosecution and prison sentences for repeat offenders. But we all know this is not happening because governments profit greatly and have much to gain from their symbiotic relationships with tech companies. So it's easier to hassle tax payers, or in this case children to gain political points.
- verisimi 7mo agoThe problem is a framed as a question of protection (who doesn't want to be protected?) with the intended effect of over-reach (spying). The coordinated track that governments around the world are on (sponsored by corporations), is that governments and corps will be able to monitor and track individuals online - people will be deanonymised (via OS logins, no side loading, 'protect the children'). The ostensibly kind desires are just sugar. Even if you accept that fact that people are online too much (by choice), teens are drinking/smoking less. When you push one thing another pops out. Forcing 'good' conformity on others, is actually psychological meddling. In my view meddling with another's desires (even if it's for their own good, in your opinion) is a form of psychological abuse. Inner re-engineering of others should not be normalised or accepted because it is done by government.
- anonyggs 7mo ago[dead]
- journal 7mo agoLive long enough and eventually it will suck.
- slopinthebag 7mo agoAt this point the UK should just raise people's children for them and drop all pretences. Sheesh.
- sandworm101 7mo agoI ask again: What is "social media"? This appears focued on apps. Ok. What about web interfaces? Is youtube? Will kids be allowed to use signal? We all talk about some great thing but we never define that thing. If we are going to move forwards with laws we need specifics. Is this place, HN, considered social media? (As this is a law regulating both online speech and the safety of children, in the UK, bypassing will likely come with draconian penalties.)
- vaylian 7mo agoThe term "social media" is meaningless at this point. People call all kinds of online services social media. In practise it typically refers to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. And I have a really hard time seeing what is "social" about YouTube, because of the huge asymmetry between creators and watchers. Even when you have reaction videos between different content creators, there is nothing social going on.
- Cakez0r 7mo agoConcerns of a nanny state side, this experiment is going to miss the mark. Social media bans is a collective action problem. Being the only teenager amongst your peers without social media is a very different situation to you _and also all of your friends_ not having social media.
- aszantu 7mo agoI can see bored guys setting shit on fire again :D
- snehk 7mo agoPeople understand that this has nothing to do with the wellbeing of any teenager, right? This is only about establishing a mechanism to prevent individuals from doing things online. Why do people fall for the "protect the children"-lines again and again?
- tsoukase 7mo agoThat governments globally start to take serious actions against an entertainment form means that multiple academic and intellectual sources warned about a dangerous fall of public literacy, intelligence and thinking. We don't need to possess classical knowledge like any university student had in the 60's but the stupidness of the last decade is unacceptable. I think the situation crossed the line in the 10's but it took a full 10 years for governments to get in the middle, probably also waiting for the controls of parenting, which failed miserably.
- cadamsdotcom 7mo agoThose with fond memories of a childhood spent playing games and typing code from magazines and having low fidelity conversations with faraway likeminded folks need to know how lucky they were, because these days that stuff may still be there but for kids it won’t win pales vs addictive social media..
- incomingpain 7mo agoIm just a Canadian observer. But the current UK government doesnt maintain a consent to govern. They certainly arent a legitimate government. They have mass arrests of political opponents for speech. Exceeding authoritarian regimes 1000:1. Putin is jealous how many illegitimate arrests they are getting away with. Now they intend to extend restricting speech of their political opponents even further.