9 ms·

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

• 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.
      • krapp 3mo ago
        So all platforms. Unless you have a definition of "influencer" more rigid than "person with some degree of influence." Because that includes Hacker News.
    • roundabout-host 3mo ago
      Or WhatsApp? Or Matrix? Or SMS? Or the telephone network? Or email? Or Google Docs?
    • achenet 3mo ago
      I'd argue that generally speaking, the problematic social media tend to be ad-supported websites that focus on user-generated content. so Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Reddit are all social-media, because all are ad-supported, and all are focused on user-generated content. HN is focused on user-generated content, but not ad-supported (okay, technically HN is 'advertising for YC', but in practice, the site isn't optimized to get you doom-scrolling so you click on more ads), and a website with a comment section, if it's like a blog or something where the majority of the content is generated by the website owner, isn't focused on user-generated content. The combination of user-generated content + advertising, however, seems to create websites that will try to get their users addicted to the site, which can harm the lives of their users.
      • nekusar 3mo ago
        The problem is capitalist companies using heavily gamified psychology to prey on people. Mastodon doesn't have this problem. Pixelfed doesn't have this problem. Lemmy doesn't have this problem. Peertube doesn't have this problem. But "social media laws" would hit all of these as well.
        • darkwater 3mo ago
          They are fundamentally different because they are not centralized and, if they are going to be centralized at some point, they will need to find a revenue stream because giving access for free to the whole world, literally, is technically impossible.
          • nekusar 3mo ago
            You basically restated that its all about profit, and centralization. > giving access for free to the whole world, literally, is technically impossible. Again, this is what Mastodon is doing. This is also how email works. And its not technically impossible. Its impossible when you have investors who demand 30x growth at all costs. Its a capitalism issue, with game theory pushing worse and worse solutions to extract smaller percentages of profit.
    • GuB-42 3mo ago
      When I had to fill up the ESTA form to enter the US, this is what was in the "social media" drop down list: - ASKfm - Facebook - Flickr - GitHub - Google+ - Instagram - JustPaste.it - LinkedIn - Tumblr - Twitter - Vine - VKontakte (VK) - YouTube This is obviously outdated but it can give an idea.
      • jhbadger 3mo ago
        That's interesting - Github as social media? That's an idea of would never have thought of in a million years. Personally, I'd be glad if a child of mine hung out there - not at all like something like Instagram or Facebook.
        • GuB-42 3mo ago
          I was also surprised, but it makes sense. It is based on user-generated content, it has a comment system, followers and stars (similar to "likes"). There is even an attention economy, and some gamification. Social media doesn't have to be bad, it just needs to be social.
          • blt 3mo ago
            github's original tagline was "Social Coding".
  • RandomLensman 3mo ago
    I don't think there is that agreement that it is in total a net negative to society. That said, with bans upcoming or in force in a lot places, what measures should we monitor to see improvements in wellbeing etc. (screen time isn't one there, I'd say)? What do we do if those do not go up noticably?
    • m000 3mo ago
      I agree that the positive effects of Social Media is understated, and probably on purpose. Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative. A generation has already grown with full distrust on what they learn from traditional media. With that picture, addressing the (undeniable) negative effects of Social Media is only the sales pitch for introducing new legislation. The true goal of the legislation however is not to "save the children", but rather to ensure that the next generations will be obedient and meek.
      • krige 3mo ago
        > Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative. Hasn't been true for a while. Now it grants people with money and state actors unprecedented control over what ordinary people are allowed to see and mold them to desired narratives.
        • krapp 3mo ago
          It is still true. People with money and state actors have always had unprecedented control over what ordinary people are allowed to see... before the internet they were the ones controlling all of the corporate media. You don't think the press was molding people to desired narratives back then? But it's obvious that social media also still allows grassroots action and organization in ways that simply weren't possible under old media. We need to be careful when talking about regulating or banning social media outright that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - we will be losing freedoms when we lose it and centralizing control of media and communication with governments and corporations (even more so than with the big social media silos now.) And freedoms lost aren't easily gained back.
  • philipallstar 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. This is sort of true, but there is definitely a scale of development that means the most harm will be done the earlier you start. Same with access to pornography. People's brains don't suddenly become immune to it at 18, it's just that that's the age of legal responsibility that ties in with other things. Men who turn 18 don't suddenly become disposable meat-based gun-holders in times of war, and yet we still treat them that way.
  • xigoi 3mo ago
    Many things are harmful for everyone, yet we only ban them for children because banning them for everyone would create huge uproar. Make tobacco illegal and then we can talk about social media.
    • graemep 3mo ago
      Tobacco is legal because of large numbers of addicts which would create a huge market for illegal supplies. The UK plans to phase out tobacco by raising the age at which it can be legally bought every year. In any case, this is whataboutery. There are lots of harmful things that adults are allowed, but lots that are banned for everyone. There are lots of things that cannot be sold without meeting safety standards (cars, electricals), or that are only sold subject strict controls (prescription drugs, guns). We do not allow adults to have whatever they want.
    • xorcist 3mo ago
      Case in point. There is no chance tobacco would be declared legal if it was invented today. Don't you agree?
      • criddell 3mo ago
        How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that marijuana is being legalized all over the place?
        • Fricken 3mo ago
          Marijuana is not a recent invention
        • bluecheese452 3mo ago
          1. Marijuana was not invented today. 2. Marijuana is not tobacco.
          • krapp 3mo ago
            Tobacco wasn't "invented" any more than was marijuana, both are naturally occurring plants which have been cultivated and used for thousands of years.
  • antii 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • NoPicklez 3mo ago
    People don't actually think that's the case. However it is obviously an age in which we believe kids can start to have more agency over their own lives and make bigger decisions because they have matured (hopefully) enough to do so. We therefore then tack other restrictions to those age brackets.
  • neuralRiot 3mo ago
    I would like to recommend a book where the author explains with scientific fundaments why lower age kids are more damaged from social media exposure. https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-anxious-generation-how-the-great-rewiring-of-childhood-is-causing-an-epidemic-of-mental-illness-jonathan-haidt/e7dfa59b478f9574?ean=9780593655030&bkshp-astro=t https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-anxious-generation-how-the-...
• bko 3mo ago
  Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think. What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes. At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violations like kids must be 13 or older. But they choose to look the other way and target only things that's a threat to their political future. Social media helps organization and political action. Maybe you don't like the outcome at this point in time but it's a powerful weapon against those in power. It's no wonder politicians will try to neuter it. But it will not help anyone but themselves.
  • kraf 3mo ago
    I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. Can you share a real world example of a case like this? You're saying a social media comment about a crime is somehow punished harshly and much harsher than the crime itself?
    • kolektiv 3mo ago
      It's a common (and somewhat right-wing) trope, but it's not really true. Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar. That isn't to say the UK has no problem with the balance of freedom of expression and regulation, but it is nothing like the impression you'd get from some sources. There are some high-profile cases which are commonly misrepresented to support these claims.
      • bko 3mo ago
        > Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar What are they arrested for, or are you disputing the number?
        • inigyou 3mo ago
          Lucy Connolly was arrested for threatening to kill a thousand people, for example.
• roundabout-host 3mo ago
  A concrete example is the annulation of the 2024 Romanian elections. It probably happened because a certain candidate was able to manipulate the TikTok algorithm using (undeclared) paid influencers and spam.
  • brabel 3mo ago
    Really bad example. From the Wikipedia article: “ No evidence established direct connections between Georgescu's campaign and Russian state actors. There were only assertions that there must have been due to his rapid rise on social media” And: the "National Liberal Party paid for a campaign on TikTok that ended up favoring ... Georgescu" and not Russia as previously presented to the Constitutional Court. Also: On 28 April 2025, right-wing conservative Hungarian think-tank Mathias Corvinus Collegium filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman because the European Commission denied access to the documents containing information on the EU's DSA proceedings in the case. That’s not something you would expect from a proper investigation. The whole thing is a mess and what we heard on the news at the time is essentially a made up story. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2024_Romanian_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_Russian_interfe...
    • xorcist 3mo ago
      Not a good counterexample either. The link to Russian intelligence services may not be proven, but nobody seems to dispute that there were paid influencers? Also that this was not declared anywhere and the money was at best grey in origin? In events like these it can be useful to operate on the systems thinking maxim and strictly look at who benefited, as this is interesting in itself without entertaining the suggestion that they engaged in anything illegal. When it comes to social media in politics, I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim a net benfit. Centralization of traditional media is generally regarded as bad for open democracies, and the ultimate owners of almost all social media globally can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.
      • bombcar 3mo ago
• chrisjj 3mo ago
  > Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. Millions of employed might disagree.
  • rwmj 3mo ago
    I'm trying to work out what this means. The "millions" employed at Meta?
• bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
  > Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody Define social media, specifically name the sites you're talking about. And explicitly state the ill health that follows when you consume social media
• shant_extry 3mo ago
  In spirit I agree with you 100%. As someone who (minus a MySpace account that lasted about 2 weeks, over 20 years ago, and a LinkedIn which only exists for job applications) never had Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (you name it, I haven't had it). So I've been watching what's happened to people from the outside. I know there are positives to social media but the challenge is how to keep them while removing the bad elements. I actually love your example of selling an otherwise good product with a poisonous ingredient and I think the most middle-of-the-road weapon against the negatives of social media is to remove those ingredients. For example, no infinite scroll, no algorithmic ordering, forced slow loading if you've been on it for more than a certain number of minutes, etc. (I'm just spitballing). In other words, undo/ban all technological features (or "ingredients") of the things that the social media companies have done that are deliberately meant to pull on weaknesses in human psychology. They know they're doing it. They hire experts to do it. You've already got the receipt for this. That memo isn't a company that stumbled into harm and feels bad about it. It's one picking a launch window based on when the people who'd object are busy.