4 ms·

Parents can stop giving kids smartphones.

kelseyfrog 2mo ago
Why repeat the same argument if it clearly hasn't worked? Do you expect it to suddenly become effective? Change in behavior can only follow from change in incentives. Parents must be held legally liable if they allow their children access to social media. That means jail time for negligence.
- autoexec 2mo ago
  Supposedly the incentive already exists because parents want their children saved from the harms of facebook and social media. The story is that parents are clamoring for the government to do something about it. I don't think parents really are, or where they are the expectation is that the social media companies will be forced to change their behavior, not that parents will be forced to start parenting their children or be forced to provide a scan of their face and passport every time they do an internet search. The government has just decided to fall back on "think of the children" as a way to implement more surveillance and control.
  - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
    The incentive for parents to stop giving their children smartphones does not exist. If it did exist, it would incite parents to perform the action: ie not give their children smartphones. Incentives incite action. No action. No incentive.
    - autoexec 2mo ago
      That's not true. Incentives aren't the whole cause of behavior and they aren't the solution to changing it either. That's the same simplistic and flawed mentality that pushes for harsher punishments to deter crime when the evidence shows that doesn't work and that not even death penalty is an effective deterrent. People have several incentives to lose weight, but increasingly they still overeat. Incentives play a role, you don't want to encourage wrong behaviors certainly, but they're just one factor in determining what people do or don't do. At best, they nudge. Those nudges aren't likely to overcome stronger forces, or even several weaker ones.
      - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
        I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. You're confusing desire/intention with incentive. Someone may have a desire or intention to lose weight. But unless they lose the weight they lack incentive. It's simple: incentives incite action. Don't make it more complicated to win an argument.
        autoexec 2mo ago
        > Someone may have a desire or intention to lose weight. But unless they lose the weight they lack incentive. Here are just some of the incentives overweight people have to lose weight: They'll look better, to themselves and others. They'll have more clothing options. They'll feel better. They'll be healthier. They'll have drastically lower odds of many future heath problems. They'll live longer which means they can spend more time being with their loved ones. Those are all incentives. Everyone who is obese has those incentives, even though different individuals may assign different values to them. Even with all those incentives that hasn't stopped the obesity problem. incentives don't incite action, but they can encourage them. incentive noun [ C or U ] Something that encourages a person to do something by offering them a reward (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incentive https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incentiv...) You can have a ton of encouragement, but that doesn't mean it will be enough to incite a behavior. What definition of incentive are you using?
        kelseyfrog 2mo ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive It literally says incite "to determination or action". Given that parents aren't actually taking smart phones away, neither determination nor action are present. I'll grant you the examples you give incite people to desire to change weight just as negative consequences incite parents to desire that "something should be done," but it doesn't incite them to actually do something. Describing something as incentive because it incites desire without changing behavior is not exactly what I think of when I think of incentives. Think of being in the position of trying to come up with incentives for a group of people. Would you call your incentives successful if they created a desire in that group without anyone actually doing anything differently?
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Polls show overwhelming support for governments to do something about kids on social media.
- Gigachad 2mo ago
  Why would we even consider jailing parents before banning social media from kids and jailing Mark Zuckerberg for pushing it on them? The power imbalance between individual parents and big tech is immense. How can we be mad at random parents for not defeating the most powerful and rich people in history?
  - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
    Because according to HN there's no way to force social media companies to not serve children without destroying privacy. That leaves parents who aren't changing their behavior because nothing has incited them to change. Legal liabily is an incentive that changes behavior.
    - iamnothere 2mo ago
      Maybe not everyone agrees that social media causes literal cancer. I mean it’s not great, but it’s not the worst thing on earth, either. It’s clearly become a moral panic at this point.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        If we define cancer as "that which replicates without regard to its host" then social media has actually caused a huge number of cancers.
walrus01 2mo ago
I don't think this is a viable or realistic option in 2026/2027. Try to imagine what your own personal reaction would have been when you were 14 years old if 90%+ of your peers had an iphone 17 or equivalent and your parents gave you a flip phone, and tried to ban you from using smartphones.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

Why repeat the same argument if it clearly hasn't worked? Do you expect it to suddenly become effective? Change in behavior can only follow from change in incentives. Parents must be held legally liable if they allow their children access to social media. That means jail time for negligence.

autoexec 2mo ago
Supposedly the incentive already exists because parents want their children saved from the harms of facebook and social media. The story is that parents are clamoring for the government to do something about it. I don't think parents really are, or where they are the expectation is that the social media companies will be forced to change their behavior, not that parents will be forced to start parenting their children or be forced to provide a scan of their face and passport every time they do an internet search. The government has just decided to fall back on "think of the children" as a way to implement more surveillance and control.
- kelseyfrog 2mo ago
  The incentive for parents to stop giving their children smartphones does not exist. If it did exist, it would incite parents to perform the action: ie not give their children smartphones. Incentives incite action. No action. No incentive.
  - autoexec 2mo ago
    That's not true. Incentives aren't the whole cause of behavior and they aren't the solution to changing it either. That's the same simplistic and flawed mentality that pushes for harsher punishments to deter crime when the evidence shows that doesn't work and that not even death penalty is an effective deterrent. People have several incentives to lose weight, but increasingly they still overeat. Incentives play a role, you don't want to encourage wrong behaviors certainly, but they're just one factor in determining what people do or don't do. At best, they nudge. Those nudges aren't likely to overcome stronger forces, or even several weaker ones.
    - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
      I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. You're confusing desire/intention with incentive. Someone may have a desire or intention to lose weight. But unless they lose the weight they lack incentive. It's simple: incentives incite action. Don't make it more complicated to win an argument.
      - autoexec 2mo ago
        > Someone may have a desire or intention to lose weight. But unless they lose the weight they lack incentive. Here are just some of the incentives overweight people have to lose weight: They'll look better, to themselves and others. They'll have more clothing options. They'll feel better. They'll be healthier. They'll have drastically lower odds of many future heath problems. They'll live longer which means they can spend more time being with their loved ones. Those are all incentives. Everyone who is obese has those incentives, even though different individuals may assign different values to them. Even with all those incentives that hasn't stopped the obesity problem. incentives don't incite action, but they can encourage them. incentive noun [ C or U ] Something that encourages a person to do something by offering them a reward (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incentive https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incentiv...) You can have a ton of encouragement, but that doesn't mean it will be enough to incite a behavior. What definition of incentive are you using?
        kelseyfrog 2mo ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive It literally says incite "to determination or action". Given that parents aren't actually taking smart phones away, neither determination nor action are present. I'll grant you the examples you give incite people to desire to change weight just as negative consequences incite parents to desire that "something should be done," but it doesn't incite them to actually do something. Describing something as incentive because it incites desire without changing behavior is not exactly what I think of when I think of incentives. Think of being in the position of trying to come up with incentives for a group of people. Would you call your incentives successful if they created a desire in that group without anyone actually doing anything differently?
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Polls show overwhelming support for governments to do something about kids on social media.
Gigachad 2mo ago
Why would we even consider jailing parents before banning social media from kids and jailing Mark Zuckerberg for pushing it on them? The power imbalance between individual parents and big tech is immense. How can we be mad at random parents for not defeating the most powerful and rich people in history?
- kelseyfrog 2mo ago
  Because according to HN there's no way to force social media companies to not serve children without destroying privacy. That leaves parents who aren't changing their behavior because nothing has incited them to change. Legal liabily is an incentive that changes behavior.
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    Maybe not everyone agrees that social media causes literal cancer. I mean it’s not great, but it’s not the worst thing on earth, either. It’s clearly become a moral panic at this point.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      If we define cancer as "that which replicates without regard to its host" then social media has actually caused a huge number of cancers.

walrus01 2mo ago

I don't think this is a viable or realistic option in 2026/2027. Try to imagine what your own personal reaction would have been when you were 14 years old if 90%+ of your peers had an iphone 17 or equivalent and your parents gave you a flip phone, and tried to ban you from using smartphones.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]