6 ms·

Conflates a whole load of othogonal issues that really have nothing to do with each other

by retube 3mo ago

FeteCommuniste 3mo ago
Interesting reversal of the "think of the kids" argument, though: think of the kids who could have used their phones to document their mistreatment at the hands of alcoholic perverts.
- j45 3mo ago
  Age 16-17 is very different than Ages 5-10 for kids to carry a device. The former is no issue. I just don't think the author's take is nuanced as they think. Kids (Age 5-13) safety is of ultimate importance. Devices, independently are also a major issue in schools. Social media use of bullying also is a major issue. To the point they are banned.
  - nrabulinski 3mo ago
    Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream. A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize. I met people some of whom I’m friends to this day, but more importantly - I could meet people to go out with, to talk to. Should we ban schools then? Because school grounds are famously place where the most bullying, especially kids 5-13 (which you highlighted yourself), is happening. Or maybe ban real life interactions? Because you can meet someone who will bully you or be of bad influence? We both know that’s not the right way, just like banning social media is not solving any problems. It’s just a convenient argument to introduce internet-wide surveillance, as well as to take away any autonomy or rights kids may have. Instead of investing in moderation, and actually scrutinizing big tech, which is the real cause of more bullying, shorter attention spans, and whatever else people say is wrong with the kids these days.
    - j45 3mo ago
      Technologies when not learned by the people to use in proper ways, too often can be used against people by people with vested financial interests. Social Media worked out that way. So did device addiction. It's great to find ways to socialize, and those ways existed before, and will also exist after. The exclusion of current forms of social media and connectivity as default doesn't mean better solutions don't step up. I'm not really sure of the tying of schools to phone bans in schools. Schools aren't perfect, but they have a legal liability to keep kids safe (or safer). Devices and social media don't. A large part of this is life coming at parents faster than they can keep up, let alone stay one season ahead of their childs growth. This would probably be a way. Societally, rules and laws, including public health are a social contract and agreement on how to live together in a tight place. Inside the home, though, is the opportunity for parents to learn and expose as they wish. Solving today's social media can solve a ton of problems, or at least provide an impetus for it to improve. Schools are supposed to be safe places for kids, right? And the entire unfiltered outside world was coming into it via device. For example, one solution is parents getting literate in tech enough to know how to lead young people before this even becomes a conversation. One way to do this is to offer unlimited screen time for creating, and much less for passive consuming. The generation that wants to experience the real world through a little screen has it backwards, and that's coming form the people who built the little digital world too. I'm not anti-technology for young people at all. I'm anti-addiction and anti-manipultion by unlimited people and parties interested in reaching eyeballs. Parents, legally, are required to provide a safe and growing environment.
      - ClumsyPilot 3mo ago
        > A large part of this is life coming at parents faster than they can keep up, let alone stay one season ahead of their childs growth. The amount of administrative tasks, bureaucracy and complexity an adult, let alone a parent, has to navigate on a daily basis has increased 100x since the 70’s. It is very convent for corporations but less convenient for parents. Just look at the amount of legal contract you have to sign relating to data, Eula, etc. > Parents, legally, are required to provide a safe and growing environment. True, but be carefull, people might solve the problem in ways you don’t expect. For example if someone races near a kids playground on electric skateboard at 50 km/h, and authorities keep ignoring the issue, they might just hit an unexpected obstacle
  - Lerc 3mo ago
    Removing a means of bullying that leaves a trail is not the same thing as removing bullying. It's just removing undeniable bullying. If people truly agreed that children needed to be protected from the desires of others, teaching them that a particular religion is the true one would be restricted until they were of an age where they could provide informed consent. For some, communication devices are the only way to escape that particular abuse.
    - j45 3mo ago
      Removing phones doesn't remove a means of bullying, it removes a magnifier and multiplier of bullying. There's lots of ways to capture bullying. But it might be hot water right? What if it was a watch with a camera? What if it was a camera alone? :) Bullying is serious enough it can't be conflated with the desires of device manufacturers and social media platforms to manufacture young consumers of their feeds. An issue here is the unfiltered internet is not capable of raising children, as much as they want to be exposed to everything, it doesn't work out the same for every child based on a whole host of independent factors than those who take the position above.
    - roelmore 3mo ago
      Forgive me if I am misinterpreting or getting in the way of your primary point -- but I think it is relatively well recognized that, though cyberbullying might not be objectively worse than analog bullying (obviously direct physical abuse/altercations cant happen electronically....yet), the 24/7 pervasiveness, anonymity, lack of emotional feedback for the bully, reach, and permanence of cyberbullying has had a meaningful impact on the state of the bullying game and the impacts it has on children. That doesn't mean I agree with the general thrust of taking technology away from kids and young adults....I don't. But I do think we should probably understand the bad that we are taking with the good.
      - nsxwolf 3mo ago
        I think a lot of people here just don't have kids of a relevant age yet. They assume either the bullying doesn't happen, or it isn't any different than bullying in person, or that it's easy to stop when it happens. You can just not have phones, but it's socially isolating. You have to frequently audit what's on their phones because they often won't volunteer what's happening. You take them out of one group chat only to have the bullies reappear in another one. Old fashioned bullying kept regular business hours. This gives them a portal into your home life 24/7, and that's the best case, when you put a ton of effort into managing it. And if you're not having this problem somehow, you might want to double check and make sure your kid isn't the bully.
  - simplyluke 3mo ago
    The UK is not proposing disallowing 16-17 year olds (or any children) from carrying smart phones on public transit, though, which makes the entire article fall apart. The author leaps from a proposed ban on 15 year olds using tiktok to wholesale bans on smartphones.
- puchatek 3mo ago
  Reminds me of the "good guys with guns" narrative tbh. Being able to document such transgressions is not enough of an argument to do a mass rollout of ad display technology IMHO.
  - pjc50 3mo ago
    The ability to film people on their phone is not the same as the ad display technology. I think the argument upthread about "conflation" has a point, but .. it's social media itself that forces the conflation. You can't just have a social network that lets you communicate with your community, it has to get tied up with international politics and exploitative advertising.
  - Barrin92 3mo ago
    the even more direct analogy is the Arab Spring, where social media and phones were widely advertised as a means to bring evil dictators down, as a democratic, youth empowering anti evil old pervert technology. The tech industry obviously jumped onto it because it's a rhetorically powerful argument but it tells you very little what the systemic consequences are ten years down the road.
    - mcmoor 3mo ago
      It's still funny how much it's celebrated because it brings down establishments, not realizing it'll also bring down their own. Reminds me of why no one should start biological warfare.
      - marysol5 3mo ago
        MAD is another one, the concept of firing your nuke means you lost. So you have to spend a lot of money to have said nuke and keep it available, just so you DON'T use it...
  - thesmtsolver2 3mo ago
    What do you think about legalizing drugs?
- pjc50 3mo ago
  I'm reminded of the way that universally carried high resolution cameras made UFOs and crop circles disappear, but police suddenly became a lot less trustworthy. The abuse question .. well, "social justice" is a term that starts fights, but there have been a lot of people who've been able to get some sort of justice only because they raised their cause on social media, having been ignored by the authorities. #MeToo is probably the big example, culminating in the Epstein revelations.
  - marysol5 3mo ago
    UFO's are still somehow always captured on the single dirtiest worst image sensor every produced by humans.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 3mo ago
  Why are we conflating having a camera with social media that is addictive?
  - marysol5 3mo ago
    Because the article is nefarious
- ceayo 3mo ago
  at the hands of alcoholic perverts who push this legislation onto them
nyeah 3mo ago
I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them? You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.
- titanomachy 3mo ago
  Not who you’re responding to, but I also don’t really think the article makes any kind of sensible argument that I can follow. Yes, it’s bad that a creepy drunk man used his phone to take pictures of teenage girls. Yes, it’s commendable that bystanders called him out. Yes, some countries are thinking of curtailing social media access for teenagers. I’m not sure what any of these things have to do with each other but the author presents them as somehow related, without drawing a coherent thread through them.
  - nyeah 3mo ago
    The article explains very clearly what these issues have to do with each other in this particular case.
    - titanomachy 3mo ago
      I don’t agree. Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant in this case. And I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that 16-year-olds shouldn’t have phones, or that 16-year-old girls are at fault when an old man secretly makes videos of them. Both these groups seem like imagined bogeymen that the article is railing against.
      - nyeah 3mo ago
        >Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant The article explains why that was not irrelevant.
        cmoski 3mo ago
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

Conflates a whole load of othogonal issues that really have nothing to do with each other

by retube 3mo ago

Conflates a whole load of othogonal issues that really have nothing to do with each other

Interesting reversal of the "think of the kids" argument, though: think of the kids who could have used their phones to document their mistreatment at the hands of alcoholic perverts.

j45 3mo ago
Age 16-17 is very different than Ages 5-10 for kids to carry a device. The former is no issue. I just don't think the author's take is nuanced as they think. Kids (Age 5-13) safety is of ultimate importance. Devices, independently are also a major issue in schools. Social media use of bullying also is a major issue. To the point they are banned.
- nrabulinski 3mo ago
  Except social media as a concept isn’t the issue. I’ve been bullied before social media was mainstream. A little later in life, when internet as a whole was majorly taking off, it helped me actually socialize. I met people some of whom I’m friends to this day, but more importantly - I could meet people to go out with, to talk to. Should we ban schools then? Because school grounds are famously place where the most bullying, especially kids 5-13 (which you highlighted yourself), is happening. Or maybe ban real life interactions? Because you can meet someone who will bully you or be of bad influence? We both know that’s not the right way, just like banning social media is not solving any problems. It’s just a convenient argument to introduce internet-wide surveillance, as well as to take away any autonomy or rights kids may have. Instead of investing in moderation, and actually scrutinizing big tech, which is the real cause of more bullying, shorter attention spans, and whatever else people say is wrong with the kids these days.
  - j45 3mo ago
    Technologies when not learned by the people to use in proper ways, too often can be used against people by people with vested financial interests. Social Media worked out that way. So did device addiction. It's great to find ways to socialize, and those ways existed before, and will also exist after. The exclusion of current forms of social media and connectivity as default doesn't mean better solutions don't step up. I'm not really sure of the tying of schools to phone bans in schools. Schools aren't perfect, but they have a legal liability to keep kids safe (or safer). Devices and social media don't. A large part of this is life coming at parents faster than they can keep up, let alone stay one season ahead of their childs growth. This would probably be a way. Societally, rules and laws, including public health are a social contract and agreement on how to live together in a tight place. Inside the home, though, is the opportunity for parents to learn and expose as they wish. Solving today's social media can solve a ton of problems, or at least provide an impetus for it to improve. Schools are supposed to be safe places for kids, right? And the entire unfiltered outside world was coming into it via device. For example, one solution is parents getting literate in tech enough to know how to lead young people before this even becomes a conversation. One way to do this is to offer unlimited screen time for creating, and much less for passive consuming. The generation that wants to experience the real world through a little screen has it backwards, and that's coming form the people who built the little digital world too. I'm not anti-technology for young people at all. I'm anti-addiction and anti-manipultion by unlimited people and parties interested in reaching eyeballs. Parents, legally, are required to provide a safe and growing environment.
    - ClumsyPilot 3mo ago
      > A large part of this is life coming at parents faster than they can keep up, let alone stay one season ahead of their childs growth. The amount of administrative tasks, bureaucracy and complexity an adult, let alone a parent, has to navigate on a daily basis has increased 100x since the 70’s. It is very convent for corporations but less convenient for parents. Just look at the amount of legal contract you have to sign relating to data, Eula, etc. > Parents, legally, are required to provide a safe and growing environment. True, but be carefull, people might solve the problem in ways you don’t expect. For example if someone races near a kids playground on electric skateboard at 50 km/h, and authorities keep ignoring the issue, they might just hit an unexpected obstacle
- Lerc 3mo ago
  Removing a means of bullying that leaves a trail is not the same thing as removing bullying. It's just removing undeniable bullying. If people truly agreed that children needed to be protected from the desires of others, teaching them that a particular religion is the true one would be restricted until they were of an age where they could provide informed consent. For some, communication devices are the only way to escape that particular abuse.
  - j45 3mo ago
    Removing phones doesn't remove a means of bullying, it removes a magnifier and multiplier of bullying. There's lots of ways to capture bullying. But it might be hot water right? What if it was a watch with a camera? What if it was a camera alone? :) Bullying is serious enough it can't be conflated with the desires of device manufacturers and social media platforms to manufacture young consumers of their feeds. An issue here is the unfiltered internet is not capable of raising children, as much as they want to be exposed to everything, it doesn't work out the same for every child based on a whole host of independent factors than those who take the position above.
  - roelmore 3mo ago
    Forgive me if I am misinterpreting or getting in the way of your primary point -- but I think it is relatively well recognized that, though cyberbullying might not be objectively worse than analog bullying (obviously direct physical abuse/altercations cant happen electronically....yet), the 24/7 pervasiveness, anonymity, lack of emotional feedback for the bully, reach, and permanence of cyberbullying has had a meaningful impact on the state of the bullying game and the impacts it has on children. That doesn't mean I agree with the general thrust of taking technology away from kids and young adults....I don't. But I do think we should probably understand the bad that we are taking with the good.
    - nsxwolf 3mo ago
      I think a lot of people here just don't have kids of a relevant age yet. They assume either the bullying doesn't happen, or it isn't any different than bullying in person, or that it's easy to stop when it happens. You can just not have phones, but it's socially isolating. You have to frequently audit what's on their phones because they often won't volunteer what's happening. You take them out of one group chat only to have the bullies reappear in another one. Old fashioned bullying kept regular business hours. This gives them a portal into your home life 24/7, and that's the best case, when you put a ton of effort into managing it. And if you're not having this problem somehow, you might want to double check and make sure your kid isn't the bully.
- simplyluke 3mo ago
  The UK is not proposing disallowing 16-17 year olds (or any children) from carrying smart phones on public transit, though, which makes the entire article fall apart. The author leaps from a proposed ban on 15 year olds using tiktok to wholesale bans on smartphones.
puchatek 3mo ago
Reminds me of the "good guys with guns" narrative tbh. Being able to document such transgressions is not enough of an argument to do a mass rollout of ad display technology IMHO.
- pjc50 3mo ago
  The ability to film people on their phone is not the same as the ad display technology. I think the argument upthread about "conflation" has a point, but .. it's social media itself that forces the conflation. You can't just have a social network that lets you communicate with your community, it has to get tied up with international politics and exploitative advertising.
- Barrin92 3mo ago
  the even more direct analogy is the Arab Spring, where social media and phones were widely advertised as a means to bring evil dictators down, as a democratic, youth empowering anti evil old pervert technology. The tech industry obviously jumped onto it because it's a rhetorically powerful argument but it tells you very little what the systemic consequences are ten years down the road.
  - mcmoor 3mo ago
    It's still funny how much it's celebrated because it brings down establishments, not realizing it'll also bring down their own. Reminds me of why no one should start biological warfare.
    - marysol5 3mo ago
      MAD is another one, the concept of firing your nuke means you lost. So you have to spend a lot of money to have said nuke and keep it available, just so you DON'T use it...
- thesmtsolver2 3mo ago
  What do you think about legalizing drugs?
pjc50 3mo ago
I'm reminded of the way that universally carried high resolution cameras made UFOs and crop circles disappear, but police suddenly became a lot less trustworthy. The abuse question .. well, "social justice" is a term that starts fights, but there have been a lot of people who've been able to get some sort of justice only because they raised their cause on social media, having been ignored by the authorities. #MeToo is probably the big example, culminating in the Epstein revelations.
- marysol5 3mo ago
  UFO's are still somehow always captured on the single dirtiest worst image sensor every produced by humans.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 3mo ago
Why are we conflating having a camera with social media that is addictive?
- marysol5 3mo ago
  Because the article is nefarious
ceayo 3mo ago
at the hands of alcoholic perverts who push this legislation onto them

nyeah 3mo ago

I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them? You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.

titanomachy 3mo ago
Not who you’re responding to, but I also don’t really think the article makes any kind of sensible argument that I can follow. Yes, it’s bad that a creepy drunk man used his phone to take pictures of teenage girls. Yes, it’s commendable that bystanders called him out. Yes, some countries are thinking of curtailing social media access for teenagers. I’m not sure what any of these things have to do with each other but the author presents them as somehow related, without drawing a coherent thread through them.
- nyeah 3mo ago
  The article explains very clearly what these issues have to do with each other in this particular case.
  - titanomachy 3mo ago
    I don’t agree. Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant in this case. And I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that 16-year-olds shouldn’t have phones, or that 16-year-old girls are at fault when an old man secretly makes videos of them. Both these groups seem like imagined bogeymen that the article is railing against.
    - nyeah 3mo ago
      >Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant The article explains why that was not irrelevant.
      - cmoski 3mo ago

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]