10 ms·

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for t

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impact on them. Whether its algorithmic feeds targeting particular age groups or short form video content that is reducing attention spans and the ability to concentrate. I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans. The Senior Legal Officer is absolutely entitled to having a phone, but absolutely not to use it however he means. The teenagers are entitled to having a phone, but potentially may have limits to how they can use those devices. Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive.

fragmede 3mo ago
> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.
- pmg101 3mo ago
  The smartphone free childhood movement is explicitly saying children shouldn't have phones (until 14). I'm broadly with them although with nuance.
- burnt-resistor 3mo ago
  Limited, locked-down smart watches is what most kids need.
  - quickthrowman 3mo ago
    That is the solution my sister and brother-in-law chose for my 10 yo nephew. He can call home and a few family members and do whatever other limited things an Apple Watch can do. I wear a regular mechanical watch and have never used an Apple Watch so I’m not exactly sure what else it can do, lol. F2P games with dopamine drip loot boxes and things of that nature seem super unhealthy for kids, I can’t even imagine what it’s doing to their impulse control. I am unable to tolerate games like that myself, probably because I grew up with regular video games that didn’t use psychological tricks and pay to win ecosystems to induce people to spend money. If I had grown up playing them I probably wouldn’t know any different, like the fish asking “what the hell is water” when asked “how is the water this morning?” By an older fish.
- yogorenapan 3mo ago
  I got my first bug bounty at 16. Not having access to compute would've drastically changed the direction of my life. I wouldn't have been able to afford university & would likely be working on a farm right now like my cousins
  - fragmede 3mo ago
    Access to a desktop computer vs a smartphone that they bring to bed with TikTok on it are different though. What was your bug bounty for?
    - dgellow 3mo ago
      As a kid I was using my PSP to browse the web at night. Will you also restrict a Nintendo DS, a Switch, and any other device that comes with a web briwser?
    - adrian17 3mo ago
      AFAIK a nontrivial (5-10%?) fraction of population own a smartphone without any bigger computing device.
      - bigfishrunning 3mo ago
        I would doubt many of them are using those smartphones to collect bug bounties.
    - yogorenapan 3mo ago
      IOS and MacOS priv esc. Yes I needed a smartphone to test on
      - fragmede 3mo ago
        That's awesome! Testing on, with a non-zero amount of adult supervision isn't the same thing as being given a phone with Snapchat and TikTok to take to bed at night though. I'm open to setting it to a different age. I didn't do a ton of research before picking 16. But also it's not like I'm actually in charge of anything either.
- roundabout-host 3mo ago
  Not unconditionally, but some truly benefit from them, if the parents teach them not to use social media in a harmful way.
- theamk 3mo ago
  Don't your kids go anywhere by themselves? Or do they stay at home / only get ferried by the parents? A bus-tracking app on my phone completely changed how I interact with public transit, and made it significantly better. I remember waiting for the bus when I was 14, and I would not wish this to anyone. A maps app is great when you are going to less-familiar places - either into the big city, or into large parks (although not every kid is ready to be hiking in the parks before 16) I spent all of my childhood with a (large and ugly) digital camera on my belt. Phone is much smaller, and for the kind of pictures I was taking, the lower quality does not matter that much.
  - marysol5 3mo ago
    I once nearly had the police called on me for being missing as a kid. Hadn't got the bus straight from school to my grandma's house, needed to go home first (walkable) and pick up something. Missed the bus then that was due, and waited over an hour for the next one. So I was now best part of 2 hours late, and I didn't have a phone yet....
anon291 3mo ago
Kids shouldn't have smartphones until much later, like late teenage years. A flip phone for kids who are out of the house regularly with some contacts is fine. No need to be a Luddite, but what do kids possibly get out of a phone? If I didn't have work and to chauffeur people around, id toss mine too.
- NoPicklez 3mo ago
  You don't need to convince me, my point was that they can have them but with limited capabilities, like only being able to SMS and call.
- gib444 3mo ago
  Then first we need to fix the issues in the parents, especially those with only one kid, reading social media and low rent news sites, who believe their kid is constantly in immortal danger, thereby forcing the phone upon the kid, in an attempt to ease their insecurities This aspect needs talking about way more especially when the parents don't admit to it and to being the instigator The question isn't just "what do the kids get out of it", it's also what do the parents: they get surveillance and some kind of reassurance. But at what cost?
  - anon291 3mo ago
    What mortal danger would necessitate a smart phone versus a dumb phone? I don't understand
    - gib444 3mo ago
      It's the live GPS tracking they want. Kidnapping?
      - anon291 3mo ago
        Unless you're divorced or super rich there's basically no reason to worry about kidnapping.
specproc 3mo ago
What it has to do with social media bans, is that the incident was propagated on social media. The author is arguing that the ability to shame others on the internet, should not be restricted to the old and powerful. In answer to your first question, what do we do. We regulate the platforms, not the users. There are loads of things that can be done to reduce online harm, that don't just say "OK, you're over this age, you can experience online harm now". Platforms can become legally responsible for content, they can be compelled to be transparent about their feed algorithms, enable monitoring via public APIs. We can ban infinite scroll. There are so many policy levers that can be pulled, without getting the ban-hammer out for people of an arbitrary age, and without forcing the rest of us to hand over our IDs to platforms.
- NoPicklez 3mo ago
  Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age. I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.
  - specproc 3mo ago
    The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations. I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?
    - NoPicklez 3mo ago
      I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing offences doesn't mean we should allow underage people drinking. From my perspective I think we do need to ask social media companies to reduce algorithmic feeds that create echo chambers or as you say provide transparent metrics on this. Social media companies should potentially ban infinite scroll/short form video content, however this is going to be difficult to do if its based on age as it will fall back to the ID/age verification issues. Feeds should also not show content considered R18+ unless manually hidden, this shouldn't be able to be removed. There is some horrifying content that can pop up on these platforms that young people shouldn't see unsolicited.
curtisblaine 3mo ago
Question: aren't you allowed to photograph or film anyone you want in public? Or the target being underage somehow removes this right? I always thought you can film whoever you want, but you can't publish what you filmed in some cases.
- dvdkon 3mo ago
  It really matters which country you're talking about, because depending on that you'll get answers from "filming in public is effectively forbidden" to "film and publish whatever you want".
- Nursie 3mo ago
  There are various limits on this, likely country dependent. And being free from legal sanction doesn't mean being free from public condemnation and shaming. So, legal limits - if your behaviour constitutes harassment especially if you're targeting certain individuals, then it's likely to be illegal. Or if your behaviour constitutes 'disturbing the peace' in some vague way the police might put a stop to it. But beyond that you're talking about the law but not everything is about the limits of the law, and the law is only a loose guide on morality. You can behave in a legal manner and still be doing something most people would consider wrong. If you take your camera and try to record someone's kids up close in the park, you should absolutely expect to be told to GTFO, possibly by a whole gang of people. "Oh but it's in public I'm not breaking any laws, you have no expectation of privacy here" doesn't mean squat. Nor is it OK to film a bunch of girls like a drunken old pervert and try to say "It's not illegal".
- NoPicklez 3mo ago
  Lets say that was true legally, its certainly frowned upon and you will be shamed for being an adult blatantly filming underage girls on a train without their permission or reason. Which is why others on the train were not happy with it.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  There's a difference between legal and ethical.
- 3mo ago
gherkinnn 3mo ago
Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” From 9 years ago (1): > Facebook showed advertisers how it has the capacity to identify when teenagers feel “insecure”, “worthless” and “need a confidence boost” 0 - https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-facial-recognition-to-smart-glasses-in-dynamic-political-environment https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-... 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-...
- worble 3mo ago
  Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy. Social media needs to be heavily regulated to the point where it's safe for everyone, or banned entirely. I don't understand why there's this belief it should have a right to exist when basically everyone agrees it's a net negative to society.
  - jhbadger 3mo ago
    For starters, what's "social media"? It's kind of a undefinable phrase. Obviously Facebook and Instagram are agreed to be "social media".But is Youtube social media? How about HN? Or any website with a comment section?
    - neutronicus 3mo ago
      I’d start with “platform on which it’s possible to become an Influencer” and work backwards.
marcus_holmes 3mo ago
> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Do we know this? As far as I can tell, the studies are ambivalent at best. Some kids are damaged, others benefit.
- iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
  Probably the same way we know most things. We know it affects us and we extrapolate.
  - marcus_holmes 3mo ago
    And every generation thinks the tech that the next generation grows up with is harmful. After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful. [0] https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/when-novels-were-bad-for-you/ https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...
    - iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
      Hmm, the argument is interesting, because it sounds convincing until you start examining it in greater detail. Allow me to point out how it is missing a mark. 1. Novels and phones are not the same tech. This is not 'generational quibble'; I am simply stating a fact. Just from pure historical perspective, written words were, correctly mind you, called out in that they will likely result in people not being able to commit as much to memory[1]. Move from written to printed produced even more of a change[2]. I am not saying those changes are ( were ) automatically bad, but it is important to recognize where they do fail. Surely, you would not argue that phones did not change the way people ingest information -- and if you wouldn't, the only question becomes whether you are honest enough to say what their particular failure modes are. 2. The nature of the tech in question is different. Written word is static and literally placed upon a page with the intent of the words staying there. Revisions result in a new physical book. The book does not suddenly become unreadable, because someone sent its publisher an order. The physical book does not track your progress to determine what passage made you most entertained to make sure next book is even more entertaining. I will stop here, but surely you can see where I am going with this... << After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful. Novels by themselves are not harmful the same way using a phone by itself is not harmful. Apart from everything else, as noted in previous paragraph, you can use the phone for more than reading. The comparison is simply not complete or close to exhaustive to allow for a proper comparison. [1]https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html [2]https://www.amazon.com/Gutenberg-Galaxy-Making-Typographic-Man/dp/0802060412 https://www.amazon.com/Gutenberg-Galaxy-Making-Typographic-M...
netniuq 3mo ago
We regulate the platforms, not the users: We ban (most? all?) targeted advertising. If we still have to go further, we force tech giants to publish their recommendation algorithms and aggregated user data (e.g. statistics about time spent on what types of content on the platform by user cohort) If we still have to go further, we can adapt policy restricting concrete addictive usage-patterns (e.g. the infinite scroll proposal recently discussed here[1]) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48897104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48897104 On an unrelated note: yes, I also don't understand how this incident has to do much with social media bans… > Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive. also agree wholeheartedly.
- jml78 3mo ago
  We ban targeted ads. Great but then what? My oldest is 17, no targeted ads to him so that means he gets a million political ads. To me, it is just as problematic. I would argue that under 18, there should be zero ads. Yeah I know it will never happen.
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    You think a 17 years old should be protected from political content? They are pretty much an adult and are able to vote in some places…
    - black_knight 3mo ago
      I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.
      - bombcar 3mo ago
        I suspect that political ands anre more about laundering money from campaigns to friends than about actually affecting the election.
trymas 3mo ago
> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. IMHO it's not healthy for anyone. From kids, to retired pensioners not knowing what to do with their time, to profesionalls doing linkedin "hacking" and "networking" on twitter, etc.
throwfaraway135 3mo ago
Kids need freedom to make their own decisions, without that they won't grow to be self realized adults. For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- marysol5 3mo ago
  >For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not. Huh? That's exactly what they did to the pervert on the train, because they knew that wasn't acceptable today
aisenik 3mo ago
Start by putting the people making money off it in prison. These are capital crimes against humanity. The notion that we just have to accept it is absurdity.
philipallstar 3mo ago
> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I am.
swiftcoder 3mo ago
> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids Regulate social media if that is the case. Bans are ineffective anyway - if you doubt that, compare and contrast the outcomes of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, versus regulating Tobacco companies...
sdevonoes 3mo ago
The problem to solve is addiction. When I was a kid I could spend the whole day and week in front of the play station… but my parents thought me that, well, that’s not normal (and ofc sent me to sleep every other night). Why social media or phones is different? Parents need to teach these kind of stuff to their kids. It’s the same for drugs, sex, money or any other thing
- marysol5 3mo ago
  And as a kid I'd risk being shouted at, and/or grounded to get onto the playstation at night, and the same with my computer. Shoving a pillow over the dial-up modem because I didn't know you could turn off the dial sound....
the_other 3mo ago
> I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans. The article is, I think, making several points at once: - some of the people involved in creating this new legislation are already responsible for the harms the legislation alleges to mitigate. We've already heard (here on HN at least) that Meta lobbies FOR age restrictions; now with this incident we have a civic leader abusing their position of power and targeting exactly the people this raft of legislation allegedly protect (although it might be stretch to assume this person is involved in bringing in said legislation; they might be quietly avoiding talking about it because they know they're part of the problem). We should be questioning who's responsible for the legislation and inspecting their motivations publicly. We should be questioning their motivations, and challenging the efficacy of the proposed solutions given the background of motivations of those proposing them. We should be challenging the decision-making: where's the evidence the mitigations will work? (and this is all in addition to the perceived harms to all adults from the increased breadth and accuracy of the dragnet surveillance the solutions create). - we don't need this kind of legislation to help raise reasonably-minded children. We should be targeting the perpetrators of the harm, not targeting near-adults who are (potentially) being harmed. The current legislation is victim-blaming, not prosecuting the perpetrators. The situation described is somewhat allegorical, rather than "here, social media is good" I think it's also saying this: - how else are people, adults, near-adults, children, going to learn of, and discuss, situations like the one described, without social media? "The Kids" have been using social media for the last ten years, and many of them are, despite the harms, growing up sane, self-controlled, able to stand up for themselves. The article is making me reflect on our household's ban on our teen using social media. We don't want them getting wrapped up in constant one-up-ing, gossiping, body-shaming, discrimination, and other social ills that go around, but we are also denying them some ability to discuss these issues, learn about them, find support from peers and experts. (I mean, they can... they can use the wider web and can talk with their parents, friends, and teachers, in person; but those media are slower or more awkward for being "in your face")
ymolodtsov 3mo ago
> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids Who said we know?
zug_zug 3mo ago
My proposal for step 1 -- Allow people to "ban themselves" from certain social media for certain period. Every platform/app MUST support the ability to set limits on usage for all time periods (hour/day/week/month) and enforce those. Also allow the user to set blacklist times. Also allow the user to set a "cooldown" period on any blacklist changes. This is the low-hanging-fruit, for those of us who KNOW it's an addiction and are actively trying to quit, but struggling to limit our usage. I use leechblock NG which is amazing for browser-based sites, but wouldn't really help a kid who's having the isuse on apps. There are many further steps to take, but I think we should all align on the most obvious ones first and build up from there.
- marysol5 3mo ago
  A BIG BIG problem, and part of the reason that we're so stuck where we are now. Is that parents just don't bother to actually employ, or enforce these systems anyway.
nobodywillobsrv 3mo ago
Stop calling it social media. Call it something like the matrix. Isolating specialized customized algorithms tube to be addicted to specifically you and tuned to keep you away from other humans forever. Instead of identity barriers like in the UK they should simply ban "accounts". Regulators should say: ok you can serve kids and women and whoever else but you have to creat 20 channels and you can't differentiate and everyone just picks a username that isn't protected and they shout into the group chat and nobody knows who anyone is except the provider and everyone sees the same thing. Ok this is an exaggeration to make the point. We can't even see what other people are being shown. You can't even opt out of being secretly show things. It's evil. I want a feed that is 100% public. Every single thing they show me is shown to everyone. Like radio or something.
charlieyu1 3mo ago
I grow up with ICQ and Geocities when I was 14 and I'm fine.

fragmede 3mo ago

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.

pmg101 3mo ago
The smartphone free childhood movement is explicitly saying children shouldn't have phones (until 14). I'm broadly with them although with nuance.
burnt-resistor 3mo ago
Limited, locked-down smart watches is what most kids need.
- quickthrowman 3mo ago
  That is the solution my sister and brother-in-law chose for my 10 yo nephew. He can call home and a few family members and do whatever other limited things an Apple Watch can do. I wear a regular mechanical watch and have never used an Apple Watch so I’m not exactly sure what else it can do, lol. F2P games with dopamine drip loot boxes and things of that nature seem super unhealthy for kids, I can’t even imagine what it’s doing to their impulse control. I am unable to tolerate games like that myself, probably because I grew up with regular video games that didn’t use psychological tricks and pay to win ecosystems to induce people to spend money. If I had grown up playing them I probably wouldn’t know any different, like the fish asking “what the hell is water” when asked “how is the water this morning?” By an older fish.
yogorenapan 3mo ago
I got my first bug bounty at 16. Not having access to compute would've drastically changed the direction of my life. I wouldn't have been able to afford university & would likely be working on a farm right now like my cousins
- fragmede 3mo ago
  Access to a desktop computer vs a smartphone that they bring to bed with TikTok on it are different though. What was your bug bounty for?
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    As a kid I was using my PSP to browse the web at night. Will you also restrict a Nintendo DS, a Switch, and any other device that comes with a web briwser?
  - adrian17 3mo ago
    AFAIK a nontrivial (5-10%?) fraction of population own a smartphone without any bigger computing device.
    - bigfishrunning 3mo ago
      I would doubt many of them are using those smartphones to collect bug bounties.
  - yogorenapan 3mo ago
    IOS and MacOS priv esc. Yes I needed a smartphone to test on
    - fragmede 3mo ago
      That's awesome! Testing on, with a non-zero amount of adult supervision isn't the same thing as being given a phone with Snapchat and TikTok to take to bed at night though. I'm open to setting it to a different age. I didn't do a ton of research before picking 16. But also it's not like I'm actually in charge of anything either.
roundabout-host 3mo ago
Not unconditionally, but some truly benefit from them, if the parents teach them not to use social media in a harmful way.
theamk 3mo ago
Don't your kids go anywhere by themselves? Or do they stay at home / only get ferried by the parents? A bus-tracking app on my phone completely changed how I interact with public transit, and made it significantly better. I remember waiting for the bus when I was 14, and I would not wish this to anyone. A maps app is great when you are going to less-familiar places - either into the big city, or into large parks (although not every kid is ready to be hiking in the parks before 16) I spent all of my childhood with a (large and ugly) digital camera on my belt. Phone is much smaller, and for the kind of pictures I was taking, the lower quality does not matter that much.
- marysol5 3mo ago
  I once nearly had the police called on me for being missing as a kid. Hadn't got the bus straight from school to my grandma's house, needed to go home first (walkable) and pick up something. Missed the bus then that was due, and waited over an hour for the next one. So I was now best part of 2 hours late, and I didn't have a phone yet....

anon291 3mo ago

Kids shouldn't have smartphones until much later, like late teenage years. A flip phone for kids who are out of the house regularly with some contacts is fine. No need to be a Luddite, but what do kids possibly get out of a phone? If I didn't have work and to chauffeur people around, id toss mine too.

NoPicklez 3mo ago
You don't need to convince me, my point was that they can have them but with limited capabilities, like only being able to SMS and call.
gib444 3mo ago
Then first we need to fix the issues in the parents, especially those with only one kid, reading social media and low rent news sites, who believe their kid is constantly in immortal danger, thereby forcing the phone upon the kid, in an attempt to ease their insecurities This aspect needs talking about way more especially when the parents don't admit to it and to being the instigator The question isn't just "what do the kids get out of it", it's also what do the parents: they get surveillance and some kind of reassurance. But at what cost?
- anon291 3mo ago
  What mortal danger would necessitate a smart phone versus a dumb phone? I don't understand
  - gib444 3mo ago
    It's the live GPS tracking they want. Kidnapping?
    - anon291 3mo ago
      Unless you're divorced or super rich there's basically no reason to worry about kidnapping.

specproc 3mo ago

What it has to do with social media bans, is that the incident was propagated on social media. The author is arguing that the ability to shame others on the internet, should not be restricted to the old and powerful. In answer to your first question, what do we do. We regulate the platforms, not the users. There are loads of things that can be done to reduce online harm, that don't just say "OK, you're over this age, you can experience online harm now". Platforms can become legally responsible for content, they can be compelled to be transparent about their feed algorithms, enable monitoring via public APIs. We can ban infinite scroll. There are so many policy levers that can be pulled, without getting the ban-hammer out for people of an arbitrary age, and without forcing the rest of us to hand over our IDs to platforms.

NoPicklez 3mo ago
Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age. I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.
- specproc 3mo ago
  The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations. I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?
  - NoPicklez 3mo ago
    I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing offences doesn't mean we should allow underage people drinking. From my perspective I think we do need to ask social media companies to reduce algorithmic feeds that create echo chambers or as you say provide transparent metrics on this. Social media companies should potentially ban infinite scroll/short form video content, however this is going to be difficult to do if its based on age as it will fall back to the ID/age verification issues. Feeds should also not show content considered R18+ unless manually hidden, this shouldn't be able to be removed. There is some horrifying content that can pop up on these platforms that young people shouldn't see unsolicited.

curtisblaine 3mo ago

Question: aren't you allowed to photograph or film anyone you want in public? Or the target being underage somehow removes this right? I always thought you can film whoever you want, but you can't publish what you filmed in some cases.

dvdkon 3mo ago
It really matters which country you're talking about, because depending on that you'll get answers from "filming in public is effectively forbidden" to "film and publish whatever you want".
Nursie 3mo ago
There are various limits on this, likely country dependent. And being free from legal sanction doesn't mean being free from public condemnation and shaming. So, legal limits - if your behaviour constitutes harassment especially if you're targeting certain individuals, then it's likely to be illegal. Or if your behaviour constitutes 'disturbing the peace' in some vague way the police might put a stop to it. But beyond that you're talking about the law but not everything is about the limits of the law, and the law is only a loose guide on morality. You can behave in a legal manner and still be doing something most people would consider wrong. If you take your camera and try to record someone's kids up close in the park, you should absolutely expect to be told to GTFO, possibly by a whole gang of people. "Oh but it's in public I'm not breaking any laws, you have no expectation of privacy here" doesn't mean squat. Nor is it OK to film a bunch of girls like a drunken old pervert and try to say "It's not illegal".
NoPicklez 3mo ago
Lets say that was true legally, its certainly frowned upon and you will be shamed for being an adult blatantly filming underage girls on a train without their permission or reason. Which is why others on the train were not happy with it.
marcus_holmes 3mo ago
There's a difference between legal and ethical.
3mo ago

gherkinnn 3mo ago

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” From 9 years ago (1): > Facebook showed advertisers how it has the capacity to identify when teenagers feel “insecure”, “worthless” and “need a confidence boost” 0 - https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-facial-recognition-to-smart-glasses-in-dynamic-political-environment https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-... 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-...

worble 3mo ago
Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy. Social media needs to be heavily regulated to the point where it's safe for everyone, or banned entirely. I don't understand why there's this belief it should have a right to exist when basically everyone agrees it's a net negative to society.
- jhbadger 3mo ago
  For starters, what's "social media"? It's kind of a undefinable phrase. Obviously Facebook and Instagram are agreed to be "social media".But is Youtube social media? How about HN? Or any website with a comment section?
  - neutronicus 3mo ago
    I’d start with “platform on which it’s possible to become an Influencer” and work backwards.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Do we know this? As far as I can tell, the studies are ambivalent at best. Some kids are damaged, others benefit.

iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
Probably the same way we know most things. We know it affects us and we extrapolate.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  And every generation thinks the tech that the next generation grows up with is harmful. After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful. [0] https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/when-novels-were-bad-for-you/ https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...
  - iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
    Hmm, the argument is interesting, because it sounds convincing until you start examining it in greater detail. Allow me to point out how it is missing a mark. 1. Novels and phones are not the same tech. This is not 'generational quibble'; I am simply stating a fact. Just from pure historical perspective, written words were, correctly mind you, called out in that they will likely result in people not being able to commit as much to memory[1]. Move from written to printed produced even more of a change[2]. I am not saying those changes are ( were ) automatically bad, but it is important to recognize where they do fail. Surely, you would not argue that phones did not change the way people ingest information -- and if you wouldn't, the only question becomes whether you are honest enough to say what their particular failure modes are. 2. The nature of the tech in question is different. Written word is static and literally placed upon a page with the intent of the words staying there. Revisions result in a new physical book. The book does not suddenly become unreadable, because someone sent its publisher an order. The physical book does not track your progress to determine what passage made you most entertained to make sure next book is even more entertaining. I will stop here, but surely you can see where I am going with this... << After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful. Novels by themselves are not harmful the same way using a phone by itself is not harmful. Apart from everything else, as noted in previous paragraph, you can use the phone for more than reading. The comparison is simply not complete or close to exhaustive to allow for a proper comparison. [1]https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html [2]https://www.amazon.com/Gutenberg-Galaxy-Making-Typographic-Man/dp/0802060412 https://www.amazon.com/Gutenberg-Galaxy-Making-Typographic-M...

netniuq 3mo ago

We regulate the platforms, not the users: We ban (most? all?) targeted advertising. If we still have to go further, we force tech giants to publish their recommendation algorithms and aggregated user data (e.g. statistics about time spent on what types of content on the platform by user cohort) If we still have to go further, we can adapt policy restricting concrete addictive usage-patterns (e.g. the infinite scroll proposal recently discussed here[1]) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48897104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48897104 On an unrelated note: yes, I also don't understand how this incident has to do much with social media bans… > Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive. also agree wholeheartedly.

jml78 3mo ago
We ban targeted ads. Great but then what? My oldest is 17, no targeted ads to him so that means he gets a million political ads. To me, it is just as problematic. I would argue that under 18, there should be zero ads. Yeah I know it will never happen.
- dgellow 3mo ago
  You think a 17 years old should be protected from political content? They are pretty much an adult and are able to vote in some places…
  - black_knight 3mo ago
    I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.
    - bombcar 3mo ago
      I suspect that political ands anre more about laundering money from campaigns to friends than about actually affecting the election.

trymas 3mo ago

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. IMHO it's not healthy for anyone. From kids, to retired pensioners not knowing what to do with their time, to profesionalls doing linkedin "hacking" and "networking" on twitter, etc.

throwfaraway135 3mo ago

Kids need freedom to make their own decisions, without that they won't grow to be self realized adults. For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
marysol5 3mo ago
>For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not. Huh? That's exactly what they did to the pervert on the train, because they knew that wasn't acceptable today

aisenik 3mo ago

Start by putting the people making money off it in prison. These are capital crimes against humanity. The notion that we just have to accept it is absurdity.

philipallstar 3mo ago

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I am.

swiftcoder 3mo ago

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids Regulate social media if that is the case. Bans are ineffective anyway - if you doubt that, compare and contrast the outcomes of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, versus regulating Tobacco companies...

sdevonoes 3mo ago

The problem to solve is addiction. When I was a kid I could spend the whole day and week in front of the play station… but my parents thought me that, well, that’s not normal (and ofc sent me to sleep every other night). Why social media or phones is different? Parents need to teach these kind of stuff to their kids. It’s the same for drugs, sex, money or any other thing

marysol5 3mo ago
And as a kid I'd risk being shouted at, and/or grounded to get onto the playstation at night, and the same with my computer. Shoving a pillow over the dial-up modem because I didn't know you could turn off the dial sound....

the_other 3mo ago

> I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans. The article is, I think, making several points at once: - some of the people involved in creating this new legislation are already responsible for the harms the legislation alleges to mitigate. We've already heard (here on HN at least) that Meta lobbies FOR age restrictions; now with this incident we have a civic leader abusing their position of power and targeting exactly the people this raft of legislation allegedly protect (although it might be stretch to assume this person is involved in bringing in said legislation; they might be quietly avoiding talking about it because they know they're part of the problem). We should be questioning who's responsible for the legislation and inspecting their motivations publicly. We should be questioning their motivations, and challenging the efficacy of the proposed solutions given the background of motivations of those proposing them. We should be challenging the decision-making: where's the evidence the mitigations will work? (and this is all in addition to the perceived harms to all adults from the increased breadth and accuracy of the dragnet surveillance the solutions create). - we don't need this kind of legislation to help raise reasonably-minded children. We should be targeting the perpetrators of the harm, not targeting near-adults who are (potentially) being harmed. The current legislation is victim-blaming, not prosecuting the perpetrators. The situation described is somewhat allegorical, rather than "here, social media is good" I think it's also saying this: - how else are people, adults, near-adults, children, going to learn of, and discuss, situations like the one described, without social media? "The Kids" have been using social media for the last ten years, and many of them are, despite the harms, growing up sane, self-controlled, able to stand up for themselves. The article is making me reflect on our household's ban on our teen using social media. We don't want them getting wrapped up in constant one-up-ing, gossiping, body-shaming, discrimination, and other social ills that go around, but we are also denying them some ability to discuss these issues, learn about them, find support from peers and experts. (I mean, they can... they can use the wider web and can talk with their parents, friends, and teachers, in person; but those media are slower or more awkward for being "in your face")

ymolodtsov 3mo ago

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids Who said we know?

zug_zug 3mo ago

My proposal for step 1 -- Allow people to "ban themselves" from certain social media for certain period. Every platform/app MUST support the ability to set limits on usage for all time periods (hour/day/week/month) and enforce those. Also allow the user to set blacklist times. Also allow the user to set a "cooldown" period on any blacklist changes. This is the low-hanging-fruit, for those of us who KNOW it's an addiction and are actively trying to quit, but struggling to limit our usage. I use leechblock NG which is amazing for browser-based sites, but wouldn't really help a kid who's having the isuse on apps. There are many further steps to take, but I think we should all align on the most obvious ones first and build up from there.

marysol5 3mo ago
A BIG BIG problem, and part of the reason that we're so stuck where we are now. Is that parents just don't bother to actually employ, or enforce these systems anyway.

nobodywillobsrv 3mo ago

Stop calling it social media. Call it something like the matrix. Isolating specialized customized algorithms tube to be addicted to specifically you and tuned to keep you away from other humans forever. Instead of identity barriers like in the UK they should simply ban "accounts". Regulators should say: ok you can serve kids and women and whoever else but you have to creat 20 channels and you can't differentiate and everyone just picks a username that isn't protected and they shout into the group chat and nobody knows who anyone is except the provider and everyone sees the same thing. Ok this is an exaggeration to make the point. We can't even see what other people are being shown. You can't even opt out of being secretly show things. It's evil. I want a feed that is 100% public. Every single thing they show me is shown to everyone. Like radio or something.

charlieyu1 3mo ago

I grow up with ICQ and Geocities when I was 14 and I'm fine.