California bill would let parents sue social media companies for addicting kids(latimes.com)
latimes.com
California bill would let parents sue social media companies for addicting kids
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2022-03-16/california-bill-would-let-parents-sue-social-media-companies-for-addicting-kids
277 comments
> ... and not give just blindly give them laptops and phones
The problem is there's no "give them laptops and phones in a non-blind way".
It's either "don't give them neither a phone nor a laptop" or needing some safeguards to be in place.
My 7 years daughter can only watch, under my watch, Netflix / Disney / etc. (not that these don't have their own issues / political agenda). The other day I went to pick her at a friend's place: they were watching a video on YouTube, elsa-gate style, where one blonde was making another blonde binge-drink a 2 liters bottle of coke in one go. What the heck? Videos upon videos on YouTube of people ingesting insane amount of sugary drinks and sweets.
And, surely enough, her friend she's already obese.
I don't know who makes these videos. I don't know why they "auto play" to kids in YouTube. I don't know why nothing is done about it. But this is evil in its purest form, messing up kids for life.
It's under a different form but the Elsagate is alive and well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
The problem is there's no "give them laptops and phones in a non-blind way".
It's either "don't give them neither a phone nor a laptop" or needing some safeguards to be in place.
My 7 years daughter can only watch, under my watch, Netflix / Disney / etc. (not that these don't have their own issues / political agenda). The other day I went to pick her at a friend's place: they were watching a video on YouTube, elsa-gate style, where one blonde was making another blonde binge-drink a 2 liters bottle of coke in one go. What the heck? Videos upon videos on YouTube of people ingesting insane amount of sugary drinks and sweets.
And, surely enough, her friend she's already obese.
I don't know who makes these videos. I don't know why they "auto play" to kids in YouTube. I don't know why nothing is done about it. But this is evil in its purest form, messing up kids for life.
It's under a different form but the Elsagate is alive and well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
We’ll put and thank you for this. We have the same situation here. Thankfully (luckily) they have picked friends with mindful parents but that could change on a whim. Our goal, and I’m sure yours as well, is to try and give them tools and information so they can, hopefully, make good decisions when we’re not around.
So much this, give the children tools and information and hope for the best is more or less all you can do.
Yes, you can monitor/supervise the child but it will have the opposite effect before you know it.
Being a parent is never going to be easy.
Yes, you can monitor/supervise the child but it will have the opposite effect before you know it.
Being a parent is never going to be easy.
kids are a massive, easily swayed demographic so there will always be some company somewhere trying to market to them. That's why there are so many restrictions when it comes to making kid-focused content.
COPPA tried to get Youtube to comply but as you see, it just becomes about pushing the envelope as close as it can without getting fined. given the copious amounts of media in the past that had the obligatory "sugar is bad for you" message, there probably wouldn't be much that the FCC or whoever can do for content like that.
I imagine it ended like "and then she puked. see? Sugar is bad for you!". So they get "good morals" and even get to put in the gross-out humor to engage kids.
COPPA tried to get Youtube to comply but as you see, it just becomes about pushing the envelope as close as it can without getting fined. given the copious amounts of media in the past that had the obligatory "sugar is bad for you" message, there probably wouldn't be much that the FCC or whoever can do for content like that.
I imagine it ended like "and then she puked. see? Sugar is bad for you!". So they get "good morals" and even get to put in the gross-out humor to engage kids.
> Can't parents acknowledge they have some responsibility towards their own children and not give just blindly give them laptops and phones and expect someone else to clean up the mess after them.
This point is academic at best and hopelessly naïve. Practically speaking parents have significantly less control than you think.
I exercise extreme restriction and thoughtfulness around tech and social media in my home. However, my kids' school hands out mandatory chromebooks (despite my protests). When my children go to a friends house, I have very little control over the content they see or the devices they can get their hands on.
And it only gets harder from there. I have some friends with older children, and there's really no controlling what they access. Sure, you can refuse to give them a smartphone, for instance. That's not going to stop one of their buddies from giving them an old smartphone when their parents get them a new one. It also won't stop them from picking up a cheap prepaid android from the nearest Walmart for $40.
So to your original point, I don't think too many of us are "blindly giving them laptops and expecting someone else to clean up the mess". We're trying to hold back a tsunami of social media trash for the sake of our kids' wellbeing, and we're losing.
This point is academic at best and hopelessly naïve. Practically speaking parents have significantly less control than you think.
I exercise extreme restriction and thoughtfulness around tech and social media in my home. However, my kids' school hands out mandatory chromebooks (despite my protests). When my children go to a friends house, I have very little control over the content they see or the devices they can get their hands on.
And it only gets harder from there. I have some friends with older children, and there's really no controlling what they access. Sure, you can refuse to give them a smartphone, for instance. That's not going to stop one of their buddies from giving them an old smartphone when their parents get them a new one. It also won't stop them from picking up a cheap prepaid android from the nearest Walmart for $40.
So to your original point, I don't think too many of us are "blindly giving them laptops and expecting someone else to clean up the mess". We're trying to hold back a tsunami of social media trash for the sake of our kids' wellbeing, and we're losing.
> tsunami of [...] trash [...] and we're losing.
We have 3 sons (they turned 9, 13 and 15). We are controlling a lot what they can access with their mobiles (the youngest one has no mobile phone) and tablet. We use family link and NextDNS to remove access to pornography, gambling, dating, etc. But leave quite some freedom outside of these stuff.
Discussing with them, especially the oldest one, I was pretty shocked to learn what the friends are looking at. Most of the 12+ year old kids have now mobile phones without any restrictions and are regularly accessing all the pornographic websites you can imagine. Some can spend up to 10h per "school" day in front of the screen, 18h during the weekend.
We are lucky to have kids doing a lot of sport, we control relatively well what they access without "whitelisting before" and try to get them to learn the environment they are navigating in, but this is really hard work.
This is hard work against companies spending billions to make our hard work ineffective. <-- this is what annoy me the most.
We have 3 sons (they turned 9, 13 and 15). We are controlling a lot what they can access with their mobiles (the youngest one has no mobile phone) and tablet. We use family link and NextDNS to remove access to pornography, gambling, dating, etc. But leave quite some freedom outside of these stuff.
Discussing with them, especially the oldest one, I was pretty shocked to learn what the friends are looking at. Most of the 12+ year old kids have now mobile phones without any restrictions and are regularly accessing all the pornographic websites you can imagine. Some can spend up to 10h per "school" day in front of the screen, 18h during the weekend.
We are lucky to have kids doing a lot of sport, we control relatively well what they access without "whitelisting before" and try to get them to learn the environment they are navigating in, but this is really hard work.
This is hard work against companies spending billions to make our hard work ineffective. <-- this is what annoy me the most.
The problem is that you are treating it as a thing to forbid. No, that never works. Kids are bound to rebel against some ultimatim of "you can't do X because it's bad or you!". That's not a satisfactory explanation for an ineivtably inquisitive adolescent. Use it as an opportunity to communicate and teach them t self-moderate. Definitely enforce it at home as well, but if you can't trust your kid outside your watch you're missing the point.
Moreover, they spend a lot of time at school, but not all of it. If teachers can't keep kids of social media for hours on end that's a problem with the school, not the social media. They banned access to phones in my school outside of emergencies and kids passed times playing video games on a TI-84. No way in heck any kid in my school back in the day would get more than a few messages between teachers peeking in
Moreover, they spend a lot of time at school, but not all of it. If teachers can't keep kids of social media for hours on end that's a problem with the school, not the social media. They banned access to phones in my school outside of emergencies and kids passed times playing video games on a TI-84. No way in heck any kid in my school back in the day would get more than a few messages between teachers peeking in
So should tabacco and alcohol manufacturers be allowed to advertise specifically to kids? After all, it's just the parents responsiblity for their children. The fact that a media giant is spending literally billions of dollars per year to get kids and teenagers glued to their service to drive up engagement has nothing to do with the problem, right? It's all on parents?
Perhaps you can't read. I said "...some responsibility..." That's because I don't believe it's "...all on parents". You can win any argument by misquoting the other person but nothing actually gets resolved that way.
Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Two reasons I read your top-level comment the same way gambiting did:
Idiomatically, "some responsibility" unfortunately isn't unambiguous. Yeah, you could mean it like how you clarified now, but if you tell someone "hey, take some responsibility for this!", that could just as well be equivalent to "hey, take responsibility for this!". It wasn't crystal clear to what degree you wanted to put it solely on the parents.
But more importantly, you ended your comment by referring to this as "stupid shit", which seems to indicate that you _don't_ think parents should be able to sue social media companies for addicting kids, that you might not even think it's worth considering, and because of that I think bringing up the comparison to tobacco and alcohol was relevant.
Idiomatically, "some responsibility" unfortunately isn't unambiguous. Yeah, you could mean it like how you clarified now, but if you tell someone "hey, take some responsibility for this!", that could just as well be equivalent to "hey, take responsibility for this!". It wasn't crystal clear to what degree you wanted to put it solely on the parents.
But more importantly, you ended your comment by referring to this as "stupid shit", which seems to indicate that you _don't_ think parents should be able to sue social media companies for addicting kids, that you might not even think it's worth considering, and because of that I think bringing up the comparison to tobacco and alcohol was relevant.
> Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Seeing as everyone here has interpreted your comment in the more or less the same way, as an obvious lack of understanding around the realities of raising children, maybe it's not them misinterpreting you.
Seeing as everyone here has interpreted your comment in the more or less the same way, as an obvious lack of understanding around the realities of raising children, maybe it's not them misinterpreting you.
might have something to do with the fact that you misrepresented the entire other side of the argument, and in such gratingly hyperbolic fashion... the doublethink is unreal.
literally no one would disagree that "parents have some responsibility towards their children."
literally no one would disagree that "parents have some responsibility towards their children."
He almost certainly got his opinion from media that also argued against those things and for the same reason, because they are morally bankrupt propagandists for hire.
Yeah, where are the lawsuits against fast food and the junk food industry? Disney puts their toys in happy meals so lets sue them too. They have caused an obesity epidemic amongst children.
Don't even get me started on Lay-Z-Boy chairs and Sony TVs. How many years have sedentary activities taken off our lives!?
Don't even get me started on Lay-Z-Boy chairs and Sony TVs. How many years have sedentary activities taken off our lives!?
I assume you are being ironic but that's happening and is a good thing:
https://www.foxnews.com/story/suit-targets-kellogg-viacoms-j...
> A consumer group wants to keep Tony the Tiger from promoting sugary cereals on the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon show, or anywhere else kids are watching.
> The Center for Science in the Public Interest Wednesday announced legal action to try to stop the Kellogg Co. (K), maker of cereals like Frosted Flakes, and Nickelodeon cable network Viacom Inc., (VIA) from marketing junk food to children.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/suit-targets-kellogg-viacoms-j...
> A consumer group wants to keep Tony the Tiger from promoting sugary cereals on the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon show, or anywhere else kids are watching.
> The Center for Science in the Public Interest Wednesday announced legal action to try to stop the Kellogg Co. (K), maker of cereals like Frosted Flakes, and Nickelodeon cable network Viacom Inc., (VIA) from marketing junk food to children.
This is about advertising services to kids tho. Cereal and its pretty logos still appear in stores, in actual ads (just not during Spongebob), on billboards, and more.
This story is more like forbidding kellogs from using mascots on cereal boxes. Which seems both nonsensical and ineffective. Seems like a huge climb to prove that web design is specifically addicting children. It's also a slightly moot point because most social media TOS require a user to be 13 years old anyway.
This story is more like forbidding kellogs from using mascots on cereal boxes. Which seems both nonsensical and ineffective. Seems like a huge climb to prove that web design is specifically addicting children. It's also a slightly moot point because most social media TOS require a user to be 13 years old anyway.
While other people have pointed out that this is already happening, but even if it wasn't, inability to solve one problem should not stop you from solving another.
"Yeah, where are the lawsuits against fast food and the junk food industry?"
about 15 years ago... the fast food companies won. Seems like all they can succeed on is skimping out on straws.
But yea, I agree on the same line of reasoning. There's a lotta bad stuff out there, it's up to parents to navigate their kids to have them actually understand why it is bad and limit consumption. Not treat it as some forbidden fruit to dine on behind your back. suing companies for providing services that aren't inherently harmful is a slippery slope I'd rather not take.
about 15 years ago... the fast food companies won. Seems like all they can succeed on is skimping out on straws.
But yea, I agree on the same line of reasoning. There's a lotta bad stuff out there, it's up to parents to navigate their kids to have them actually understand why it is bad and limit consumption. Not treat it as some forbidden fruit to dine on behind your back. suing companies for providing services that aren't inherently harmful is a slippery slope I'd rather not take.
My parents worked their ass off but they still cooked dinner. With actual vegetables. Remember those? And we weren't rich or anything.
Funny thing is that parents are the boss in the house. No coca cola we drink water in this household and that's final.
Funny thing is that parents are the boss in the house. No coca cola we drink water in this household and that's final.
We can, but those system are optimized to negate our efforts. Peer pressure among kids is also extremely hard to overcome.
"Letting parent sue" is a very American way to go about it, but exploiting kids underdeveloped brain should be illegal.
"Letting parent sue" is a very American way to go about it, but exploiting kids underdeveloped brain should be illegal.
> "Letting parent sue" is a very American way to go about it, but exploiting kids underdeveloped brain should be illegal.
Giving people cause of action to sue you for something is making the thing illegal. Civil law is law. And it is law that can be enforced even when the police and prosecutors are hostile or indifferent to you as a victim and sympathetic to the perpetrator, which is something that is not true of criminal law, much to the detriment of marginalized communities.
Of course, it also costs money to enforce it, which makes it harder for marginalized communities, so it's not all sunlight and roses.
Giving people cause of action to sue you for something is making the thing illegal. Civil law is law. And it is law that can be enforced even when the police and prosecutors are hostile or indifferent to you as a victim and sympathetic to the perpetrator, which is something that is not true of criminal law, much to the detriment of marginalized communities.
Of course, it also costs money to enforce it, which makes it harder for marginalized communities, so it's not all sunlight and roses.
Exactly. We don't live in a vacuum. So many people saying just take some personal responsibility. But when you see the effects on society at large, you have to acknowledge that maybe it's something about our genetics / psychology that's being exploited unfairly.
Add to that, that "personal responsibility" only helps when the fight is remotely fair.
I'm a reasonably diligent parent and think fairly highly of myself, but if the fight is me against a couple of trillion dollar tech companies who have very bright staff devoted to capturing my children's attention my any means necessary, well that's a fight I'm going to lose sooner or later.
I'm a reasonably diligent parent and think fairly highly of myself, but if the fight is me against a couple of trillion dollar tech companies who have very bright staff devoted to capturing my children's attention my any means necessary, well that's a fight I'm going to lose sooner or later.
>But when you see the effects on society at large, you have to acknowledge that maybe it's something about our genetics / psychology that's being exploited unfairly.
people wanting to talk to other people? Yes, that's the great benefit of social media. in the 2000's this was kids using cellphone minutes to chat around on flip phones. in the 90's it was some early online game chats. in the 80's it was kids stuck at an arcade.
I don't see anything inherently unethical about social media. You just gotta teach kids how to communicate to others and express themselves without putting down others. Not an easy feat (the bully trope goes back millenia), but this stopgap of just holding the courier accountable doesnt seem to solve anything,
people wanting to talk to other people? Yes, that's the great benefit of social media. in the 2000's this was kids using cellphone minutes to chat around on flip phones. in the 90's it was some early online game chats. in the 80's it was kids stuck at an arcade.
I don't see anything inherently unethical about social media. You just gotta teach kids how to communicate to others and express themselves without putting down others. Not an easy feat (the bully trope goes back millenia), but this stopgap of just holding the courier accountable doesnt seem to solve anything,
The universe is not vast enough to contain a list of all the things we've brought to the brink of ruin to make parents' lives easier. This on top of an already massive pile of all sorts of benefits from taxation and the joy of children to longer life spans and having someone to chariot you between your bed and the toilet and wipe your royal cheeks.
Yes, yes, yes, we can't have a society without children etc etc etc. I understand it can't all be on the parents. But ffs, how about some of it?
Still, this is so much better than what the EU cooked up: saving the children by forcing websites to ask for your government issued ID to watch a video.
Yes, yes, yes, we can't have a society without children etc etc etc. I understand it can't all be on the parents. But ffs, how about some of it?
Still, this is so much better than what the EU cooked up: saving the children by forcing websites to ask for your government issued ID to watch a video.
This is like saying parents should be responsible for the drug dealer on school playground. Its reasonable to expect going to school is a good thing, we can even argue about if someone should have kept an eye on them, but it should be undeniable that the drug dealer is for sure culpable.
It’s really not that simple. I just left my daughter at an established, reputable daycare.
Turns out they were short staffed, and so just gave the kids tons and tons of screen time.
Are you suggesting that the children should be monitored by parents 24/7? No day care? Homeschooling all kids? No babysitters?
Turns out they were short staffed, and so just gave the kids tons and tons of screen time.
Are you suggesting that the children should be monitored by parents 24/7? No day care? Homeschooling all kids? No babysitters?
are you suggesting that a few days of screen time at a bad day care is the screen's fault? Get another daycare that isn't shortstaffed. No kid is gonna be scarred for life over a few days of random youtube videos unless the day care is truly incompetent (which sounds like a good case to sue the day care over. Not Google).
My friend let his son play a free game but the ads on it were terrible. He diligently watched but yes he probably should have just paid to make the ads go away
On the other hand, they should not be advertising that stuff to kids in kid games
On the other hand, they should not be advertising that stuff to kids in kid games
Some yes but probably not all.
I agree that's the only sustainable way of protecting kids.
But it requires a radical shift in society and culture. Parents need to spend a LOT more time with their kids. Specially mothers.
Some people will disagree and even downvote - I presume for ideological reasons - but I have the opinion that, for < 5 years-old children, spending time with the mother is more important than the father. So women should have a special safety net to dedicate more to their kids without worrying about their finances and career prospects. Men should also be taught since childhood to provide security to women.
I know, I know, lots of different types of families nowadays. I just don't know how they work, I only know "Mother, Father and children" families... Sorry, limitations of my personal experience.
But it requires a radical shift in society and culture. Parents need to spend a LOT more time with their kids. Specially mothers.
Some people will disagree and even downvote - I presume for ideological reasons - but I have the opinion that, for < 5 years-old children, spending time with the mother is more important than the father. So women should have a special safety net to dedicate more to their kids without worrying about their finances and career prospects. Men should also be taught since childhood to provide security to women.
I know, I know, lots of different types of families nowadays. I just don't know how they work, I only know "Mother, Father and children" families... Sorry, limitations of my personal experience.
"Mother, Father and children" is a relatively new phenomenon. The more common historical norm is "Mother, Father, some grandparent, maybe an aunt, and children". Under the latter scenario, there are a ton of different adults that can pay attention to the kids at any one time.
An arrangement of "mother stays home" is just as arbitrary as anything else in the grand scheme of things. There's nothing "traditional" or "normal" about it.
An arrangement of "mother stays home" is just as arbitrary as anything else in the grand scheme of things. There's nothing "traditional" or "normal" about it.
Yes, I would say over the last several thousand years, since agriculture, both parents stayed home (on the farm/lord's land) and the kids helped them work it. Having one or both parents gone any substantial amount of time is a completely new phenomenon outside death from disease or war or something like that. Industrialization over the past 150 years or so has gradually but completely changed how humans work and I think we're still getting accustomed to it as a species.
One of the nice things about remote working now is we're returning back to working at home / on the farm, which is more "natural" than both parents going to the office/factory.
One of the nice things about remote working now is we're returning back to working at home / on the farm, which is more "natural" than both parents going to the office/factory.
You're misrepresenting my comment.
I didn't say it's old, common, traditional, or anything else. Just my personal experience. What you said is certainly on your mind, not mine.
> The more common historical norm
Source?
> ton of different adults
I don't think any other adult can perfectly replace a father and mother. It's not just about not letting kids get hurt. It's related to fatherhood and motherhood which shapes behavior in ways that an uncle, grandma, teacher, caretaker, whatever just can't have.
I didn't say it's old, common, traditional, or anything else. Just my personal experience. What you said is certainly on your mind, not mine.
> The more common historical norm
Source?
> ton of different adults
I don't think any other adult can perfectly replace a father and mother. It's not just about not letting kids get hurt. It's related to fatherhood and motherhood which shapes behavior in ways that an uncle, grandma, teacher, caretaker, whatever just can't have.
First it was comic books causing juvenile delinquency. Then it was rock music causing youthful depraved behavior. Then it was video games inducing violent behavior in teens. Now it's social media...
Though I have to admit, when Lex Luther said he could turn a sand pile into an atomic pile, I decided to become a super-villain.
Though I have to admit, when Lex Luther said he could turn a sand pile into an atomic pile, I decided to become a super-villain.
The difference between a comic book, offline video games and the current social media/MMPROGs is two fold:
1. There is an erosion of physical limitations on how much time you can spend on an activity on an "item". A comic book has fixed no. of pages, once you have finished, you need to get another physical comic book. It doesn't automagically keep adding pages as you keep turning.
2. Deliberate algorithm driven strategies to increase "engagement": the content of the comic book is fixed - you either like it or you don't. It doesn't change the content on the fly based on which turn of events you prefer. Offline video games had more "engagement" but it still was limited by the inbuilt branching of possibilities (which still could be a lot depending on the cleverness of the algorithm/engine - that is why people spent hundreds and thousands of hours on them even without them being MMPROGs). With the current set, the entire thing is driven to reel you in right from the get-go and keep you hooked as long as possible. That surely can't be a good thing for your health.
1. There is an erosion of physical limitations on how much time you can spend on an activity on an "item". A comic book has fixed no. of pages, once you have finished, you need to get another physical comic book. It doesn't automagically keep adding pages as you keep turning.
2. Deliberate algorithm driven strategies to increase "engagement": the content of the comic book is fixed - you either like it or you don't. It doesn't change the content on the fly based on which turn of events you prefer. Offline video games had more "engagement" but it still was limited by the inbuilt branching of possibilities (which still could be a lot depending on the cleverness of the algorithm/engine - that is why people spent hundreds and thousands of hours on them even without them being MMPROGs). With the current set, the entire thing is driven to reel you in right from the get-go and keep you hooked as long as possible. That surely can't be a good thing for your health.
If I had had my way as a kid, I'd have watched TV all day every day. My dad would say "kids belong outside" and I'd be banished from the house until dinner time.
Wasn't allowed to stay inside and read comic books, either.
At the time I was sure I was being abused, but in retrospect he had the right idea.
TV has always been optimized for engagement and programs are carefully scheduled to keep you watching.
Wasn't allowed to stay inside and read comic books, either.
At the time I was sure I was being abused, but in retrospect he had the right idea.
TV has always been optimized for engagement and programs are carefully scheduled to keep you watching.
Isn't that GP's point? Parents in 2022 have a dramatically reduced ability to prevent their children from staring at a screen all day everyday. Even in school, they are glued to their screens. Even if you don't provide them a phone, they have cheap and easy ways to obtain their own.
Edit to add: The dad forcing his kid outside no longer stops them from staring at the screen all day.
Edit to add: The dad forcing his kid outside no longer stops them from staring at the screen all day.
Take away his screen.
Suing a company because one is too lazy to say "no" to the kids is deplorable.
Suing a company because one is too lazy to say "no" to the kids is deplorable.
> A comic book has fixed no. of pages, once you have finished, you need to get another physical comic book.
Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.
> That surely can't be a good thing for your health.
But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?
Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.
> That surely can't be a good thing for your health.
But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?
> Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.
When I was young, I always read my comic books again and again, mainly because I had a small collection - to the point I almost memorized them. But what you are re-re-re-consuming is still finite and it is upto your mind to discover new things and add the spice of imagination to keep it interesting.
> But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?
A comic book presents a relatively static and limited window with tantalizing possibilities - that leaves a lot of legroom for your mind to wander and imagine things and be fascinated with them instead of immediately moving on to the next item on the infinite scroll. Regarding video games/rock music, I don't subscribe to the notions you mentioned. The main issue isn't what is that you are consuming (to be clear, that does matter) but are you consuming in moderation or is your brain overeating without digesting?
When I was young, I always read my comic books again and again, mainly because I had a small collection - to the point I almost memorized them. But what you are re-re-re-consuming is still finite and it is upto your mind to discover new things and add the spice of imagination to keep it interesting.
> But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?
A comic book presents a relatively static and limited window with tantalizing possibilities - that leaves a lot of legroom for your mind to wander and imagine things and be fascinated with them instead of immediately moving on to the next item on the infinite scroll. Regarding video games/rock music, I don't subscribe to the notions you mentioned. The main issue isn't what is that you are consuming (to be clear, that does matter) but are you consuming in moderation or is your brain overeating without digesting?
> Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading?
These statements were never proven empirically, while social media's addictive design and impact is at this point undeniably documented. That is the difference.
These statements were never proven empirically, while social media's addictive design and impact is at this point undeniably documented. That is the difference.
Actually, I vividly remember reading about empirical studies linking video game violence to antisocial behaviour (studies that were later disproven). Who tells us that the current studies won't be similarly become overruled by majority consensus? We should be careful only believing in the studies who tell us what we want to hear.
On further research, metastudies [1] tend to find out that there are tons of studies linking violent games to violent behaviour: "On the basis of this metaanalysis, we conclude that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of overt physical aggression over time, after accounting for prior aggression."
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611617114#t01
On further research, metastudies [1] tend to find out that there are tons of studies linking violent games to violent behaviour: "On the basis of this metaanalysis, we conclude that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of overt physical aggression over time, after accounting for prior aggression."
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611617114#t01
Hmm... It seems I was under informed. But if these things are problems, then we should try to fix them right? Doesn't that mean the "think of the children" crowd was actually right? We should be making games less violent, or at least provide accurate information about age appropriateness with nuanced content warnings.
>But if these things are problems, then we should try to fix them right?
Preventative measures never work. Mitigative measures should be how you enforce lessons. But everytime it's all about banning content, because sweeping it under the rug means kids won't try to dig, right?
Don't just say "GTA is bad don't play it". Explain what is bad about it (in very specific details), and why they should instead play something else until they get older. Don't treat it as if watching one act of violence or one sex scene will scar the kid for life. If they are old enough to go behind your back, they are probably old enough to be talked to about these topics. At least enough for them to understand why you disapprove.
Preventative measures never work. Mitigative measures should be how you enforce lessons. But everytime it's all about banning content, because sweeping it under the rug means kids won't try to dig, right?
Don't just say "GTA is bad don't play it". Explain what is bad about it (in very specific details), and why they should instead play something else until they get older. Don't treat it as if watching one act of violence or one sex scene will scar the kid for life. If they are old enough to go behind your back, they are probably old enough to be talked to about these topics. At least enough for them to understand why you disapprove.
> Don't just say "GTA is bad don't play it". Explain what is bad about it (in very specific details)
> at least provide accurate information about age appropriateness with nuanced content warnings.
You say tomato, I say tomato?
> at least provide accurate information about age appropriateness with nuanced content warnings.
You say tomato, I say tomato?
Maybe we should go back to the Hayes Code where movies removed all immoral content?
"Addictive" is a word bandied about with abandon.
If these things are so addictive, are there withdrawal symptoms? When I'm off the intertoobs for a few days (travelling) I suffer no withdrawal symptoms and don't miss it.
If these things are so addictive, are there withdrawal symptoms? When I'm off the intertoobs for a few days (travelling) I suffer no withdrawal symptoms and don't miss it.
"addictive" meh sure. But what about harmful?
Back in the drama around facebooks' internal studies a few months ago, AFAICT it was all hot air and very sad quality studies, I couldn't believe the hype.
Are there other better studies showing harm that haven't been publicized as much?
Back in the drama around facebooks' internal studies a few months ago, AFAICT it was all hot air and very sad quality studies, I couldn't believe the hype.
Are there other better studies showing harm that haven't been publicized as much?
You don't think addiction brings harm? Do you have an addiction of your own?
addiction brings harm, but addiction's meaning has been muddied over the years. There are very few kids who would be taken off social media and legitimately suffer withdrawal symptoms due to lack of access.
That language is important when determining how to sue a company.
That language is important when determining how to sue a company.
> Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.
There is still a defined end state that encourage a break from consumption. How often do you finish a book and then immeadiately start reading from page 1 again.
There is still a defined end state that encourage a break from consumption. How often do you finish a book and then immeadiately start reading from page 1 again.
Sorry, Walter, I don't recall comic book companies hiring legions of psychologists, behavioral economists, and data scientists in order to optimize engagement metrics by exploiting evolutionary bugs built into our brains. This is fundamentally different technology, but nice try. I don't necessarily think that this law is the solution, but I'm glad not everyone is as laissez faire about it as yourself.
> Walter, I don't recall comic book companies hiring legions of psychologists, behavioral economists, and data scientists in order to optimize engagement metrics by exploiting evolutionary bugs built into our brains
They had to do it the old-fashion way and put explosions and women with cleavage on the cover instead.
They had to do it the old-fashion way and put explosions and women with cleavage on the cover instead.
> I don't recall comic book companies hiring legions of psychologists, behavioral economists, and data scientists in order to optimize engagement metrics by exploiting evolutionary bugs built into our brains.
demographic studies and market analysis wasn't invented in the 80's. Neither was clickbait nor color theory or other general psychology. There very much were psychologists to figure out what stories resonate with an audience, and economists optimizing the price per issue with the right cut-off point to engage you to buy the next one. Data scientists didn't exist the way they do now, but did the same thing; surveying a bunch of kids and figuring out what they liked and making content based on it.
None of this is new. advertisement is an art with centuries of refinement.
demographic studies and market analysis wasn't invented in the 80's. Neither was clickbait nor color theory or other general psychology. There very much were psychologists to figure out what stories resonate with an audience, and economists optimizing the price per issue with the right cut-off point to engage you to buy the next one. Data scientists didn't exist the way they do now, but did the same thing; surveying a bunch of kids and figuring out what they liked and making content based on it.
None of this is new. advertisement is an art with centuries of refinement.
Is there a source for this? I have taken this at face value, because its quite clear from app designs that this is happening, but I have never found definitive proof of this happening. Has someone compiled a report on this?
In principle I agree. Still I see structural differences in comic books and the abuse potential of psychological principles behind skinner boxes (esp. randomized rewards).
We are basically training ourselves with systems like these to press the lever again and again.
Even HN with the random element of 'will my submission/comment receive votes' works like a skinner box. And we don't even have notifications here.
Not sure if it is a good idea to train young people into these dopamine "shots". I remember how friends of mine spent all their pocket money on these collectible card games. Looking back these were my first encounter with the loot box principle.
We are basically training ourselves with systems like these to press the lever again and again.
Even HN with the random element of 'will my submission/comment receive votes' works like a skinner box. And we don't even have notifications here.
Not sure if it is a good idea to train young people into these dopamine "shots". I remember how friends of mine spent all their pocket money on these collectible card games. Looking back these were my first encounter with the loot box principle.
> First it was comic books causing juvenile delinquency. Then it was rock music causing youthful depraved behavior. Then it was video games inducing violent behavior in teens. Now it's social media...
The difference between those things and social media is that none of them were "always on, always available" corporate behemoths hiring legions of addiction experts and legions of marketing experts crafting powerful social networks and legions of lobbyists to stifle legislation.
The difference between those things and social media is that none of them were "always on, always available" corporate behemoths hiring legions of addiction experts and legions of marketing experts crafting powerful social networks and legions of lobbyists to stifle legislation.
Those are two categorically different things. Rock music was blamed for encouraging immorality(given the number of rock stars that have admitted getting with underage groupies I think there's still an argument to be made here). Social media is knowingly giving little girls eating disorders. It's not a moral panic
You might say this is different, and maybe you're right, but the "save the children" rhetoric is exactly the same.
The amount of people trying to assign social media companies the role of "publisher", responsible for everything that happens on their platform, is absurd. It's how we get websites that are "legally required" to look over EVERYTHING that you do, at all times, and have robots judge if you are being too mean or not, just so that they can say they are putting in an effort. Social media companies should not be responsible for anything their users post, or it will be the complete death of any sort of online privacy.
>The amount of people trying to assign social media companies the role of "publisher", responsible for everything that happens on their platform, is absurd.
It’s simple. Either users have absolute control over the content that they see, or the social media companies are publishers.
Go to YouTube. Log out. What do you see? It’s not nothing. They’ve decided what to show you.
Tech and social media companies are algorithmically dictating what you see and hiding behind the fact that it’s not “their content.” Why is this considered different from a news site which exclusively hosts opinion pieces from independent journalists?
This is before we even get into editorializing, which is now common on every major social media platform. Not only are social media platforms dictating what you see but also they are editorializing that content before you see. And yet somehow they aren’t publishers, because reasons.
It’s simple. Either users have absolute control over the content that they see, or the social media companies are publishers.
Go to YouTube. Log out. What do you see? It’s not nothing. They’ve decided what to show you.
Tech and social media companies are algorithmically dictating what you see and hiding behind the fact that it’s not “their content.” Why is this considered different from a news site which exclusively hosts opinion pieces from independent journalists?
This is before we even get into editorializing, which is now common on every major social media platform. Not only are social media platforms dictating what you see but also they are editorializing that content before you see. And yet somehow they aren’t publishers, because reasons.
> Tech and social media companies are algorithmically dictating what you see and hiding behind the fact that it’s not “their content.” Why is this considered different from a news site which exclusively hosts opinion pieces from independent journalists?
They're considered different because the news site doesn’t have an “upload article”-button that lets anyone host an article of their choice on the news site in question.
They're considered different because the news site doesn’t have an “upload article”-button that lets anyone host an article of their choice on the news site in question.
This doesn't matter in practice - the upload button you see on YouTube will never get you on the front page.
neither does editorials that news sites approve and publish. Are we suggesting (on a site with point based sorting nonetheless) that curation is an inherently manipulative strategy on the internet with terabytes of content created per day?
>They're considered different because the news site doesn’t have an “upload article”-button that lets anyone host an article of their choice on the news site in question.
Social media companies don’t let anyone post about anything they want, either. They’ll ban you for not following their rules.
Social media companies don’t let anyone post about anything they want, either. They’ll ban you for not following their rules.
> It’s simple. Either users have absolute control over the content that they see, or the social media companies are publishers.
> Go to YouTube. Log out. What do you see? It’s not nothing. They’ve decided what to show you.
Help me understand: if a content platform has a “suggestions” view, then they are publishers? Or only if this view cannot be hidden by the user?
> Go to YouTube. Log out. What do you see? It’s not nothing. They’ve decided what to show you.
Help me understand: if a content platform has a “suggestions” view, then they are publishers? Or only if this view cannot be hidden by the user?
>Help me understand: if a content platform has a “suggestions” view, then they are publishers? Or only if this view cannot be hidden by the user?
The former.
The former.
Not only are social media platforms dictating what you see but also they are editorializing that content before you see. And yet somehow they aren’t publishers, because reasons.
You are forced to go to their site everyday because reasons
You are forced to go to their site everyday because reasons
It's how we get websites that are "legally required" to look over EVERYTHING that you do, at all times, and have robots judge if you are being too mean or not, just so that they can say they are putting in an effort.
That sounds ridiculous until you realise that they already do it. They decide what to show in your timeline by looking over every post and matching what they think you'll engage with most. They know exactly when you're being a dick, what posts to show you to encourage or discourage that behavior, who to show your posts to, and so on. Adding a box to say "this post looks pretty bad, maybe take a break now" wouldn't be difficult. They don't want to do it because negative shitposts make them money.
That sounds ridiculous until you realise that they already do it. They decide what to show in your timeline by looking over every post and matching what they think you'll engage with most. They know exactly when you're being a dick, what posts to show you to encourage or discourage that behavior, who to show your posts to, and so on. Adding a box to say "this post looks pretty bad, maybe take a break now" wouldn't be difficult. They don't want to do it because negative shitposts make them money.
TikTok in fact shows you a video of a man saying “woah you’ve been scrolling for a while. Maybe you should take a break” after like an hour. So it’s totally a doable thing for them to interject and suggest a break.
Like you said, they review every post already. The tools are there they’re just being used for the wrong goals.
Like you said, they review every post already. The tools are there they’re just being used for the wrong goals.
Now you just propagate propaganda of social networks. The non-legal definition of a publisher is entity which collects, selects and packs content. You see, the very moment social networks, forums and other platforms choose to moderate the content by removing "inappropriate" content they effectively become publishers due to selectivity. You just cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Either you do not filter the content and shift responsibility to actual content creators (I have no idea how it would be possible to implement that without ditching the very concept of "feed") or you select the content and take on full legal responsibility for what you selected.
Either you do not filter the content and shift responsibility to actual content creators (I have no idea how it would be possible to implement that without ditching the very concept of "feed") or you select the content and take on full legal responsibility for what you selected.
I don't think this is about content at all. We are not asking them to do more, we are asking them to do less. Less dark UX patterns, less addictive habit forming UI, less AI to maximize engagement.
The trend of "outsource enforcement of laws to civil suits" is concerning - not event "constitutional rights"-wise but also from a "due process" (possibly there's a better term) perspective. The number of prospective plaintiffs who could bring a case on weak grounds that you still have to spend a lot of $$$ defending is wild.
You are right, and for context that trend started decades ago in the US.
The general direction has been to let corporate roam free, and use lawsuits as the regulator for when their behavior bumps into externalities.
Of course, as a safeguard corporations will make these lawsuits look as ridiculous and frivolous as possible, argue that people are trigger happy with lawsuits, and from time to time fabricate stories to sway the opinion in the right direction.
An example of a book about this: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo364551...
About nice heart-warming stories of frivolous lawsuits: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124041909/https://www.latim...
The general direction has been to let corporate roam free, and use lawsuits as the regulator for when their behavior bumps into externalities.
Of course, as a safeguard corporations will make these lawsuits look as ridiculous and frivolous as possible, argue that people are trigger happy with lawsuits, and from time to time fabricate stories to sway the opinion in the right direction.
An example of a book about this: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo364551...
About nice heart-warming stories of frivolous lawsuits: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124041909/https://www.latim...
This is what happens when the government abdicates is responsibility to, well, govern. Instead of legislature providing some clarity on what desirable behaviour looks like, you'll get case law that will eventually provide that clarity - at great expense to everyone involved.
The trend is created by a lack of government regulation of corporations in the United States. Europe controls the negative externalities of capitalism with powerful regulatory agencies; I've noticed an antipathy towards their activity on HN as well. That said, it appears clear to me we need one system or the other.
No, the trend GP is describing was started by Texas just last year and allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court's inaction.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/supreme-court-texas...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/supreme-court-texas...
Texas did intensify it, in particular by trying to use private enforcement as a mechanism for doing an end-run around federal constitutional oversight of state law (it remains to be seen whether this will work once it's fully litigated). But private enforcement mechanisms have been an almost unique feature of U.S. law for considerably longer than that.
This is a pretty good law review article from 10 years ago: J. Maria Glover (2012). The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law. William & Mary Law Review 53:1137–1217. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol53/iss4/3. A quote:
> The American regulatory system is unique in that it expressly relies on a diffuse set of regulators, including private parties, rather than on a centralized bureaucracy for the effectuation of its substantive aims. In contrast with more traditional conceptions of private enforcement as an ad hoc supplement to public law, this Article argues that private regulation through litigation is integral to the structure of the modern administrative state. Private litigation and the mechanisms that enable it are not merely add-ons to our regulatory regime, much less are they fundamentally at odds with it.
This is a pretty good law review article from 10 years ago: J. Maria Glover (2012). The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law. William & Mary Law Review 53:1137–1217. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol53/iss4/3. A quote:
> The American regulatory system is unique in that it expressly relies on a diffuse set of regulators, including private parties, rather than on a centralized bureaucracy for the effectuation of its substantive aims. In contrast with more traditional conceptions of private enforcement as an ad hoc supplement to public law, this Article argues that private regulation through litigation is integral to the structure of the modern administrative state. Private litigation and the mechanisms that enable it are not merely add-ons to our regulatory regime, much less are they fundamentally at odds with it.
I'm not certain, but I think this was started by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Instead of having government officials verifying compliance, it created "professional plaintiffs". [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
As a related note, the reason playgrounds are so sanitized now (along with so many other activities) is because US health care is generally paid by private insurance, rather than universal coverage as in Europe.
This means that if a child is injured on the playground, the insurance company will sue the owner of the playground (the owner could be the city) unless it can be proved that the playground took all care to make it safe.
Relationship to the parent post: lawsuits as a regulatory mechanism.
This means that if a child is injured on the playground, the insurance company will sue the owner of the playground (the owner could be the city) unless it can be proved that the playground took all care to make it safe.
Relationship to the parent post: lawsuits as a regulatory mechanism.
Playgrounds are sanitized in the UK and the EU as well. They’re not fun anymore anywhere in the west.
This isn’t about private health insurance. It’s a much deeper issue or risk tolerance for society.
This isn’t about private health insurance. It’s a much deeper issue or risk tolerance for society.
Safety regulations offer the possibility of a more holistic take on wellbeing than an insurance company's accident indemnity can be expected to offer. So there is some correction going on:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/24/why-germany-is...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/24/why-germany-is...
To add European perspective on same issue: playgrounds are regulated by law and failure to comply results in criminal lawsuits and jail time. Of course the system ain’t perfect but in general when you go to any playground (both public and privately owned) you’re guaranteed (legally) that all equipment is tested and passed periodical inspection. Red tape surrounded playgrounds that looks completely fine aren’t uncommon sight especially during spring season when it’s inspection time.
So what’s the incentive to open and keep a playground? It seems like a huge liability. Part of the problem is adults let children play with cellphones because it’s “safe”.
Money, as always.
Commercial entities (kindergartens, schools, etc.) present themselves as well equipped by showing they have well equipped playground or other amenities. Those are filled quicker than those not having one and I've seen instances where few commercial entities decided to create a shared commercial playground. Some are pay-to-enter so it's even simpler.
Public ones are more complicated. I know for instance, that where I live there are annual calls for social projects which are voted upon by community and payed for using tax money. There's plethora of them and while budget for the winner projects is limited quite often there are groups trying to push their idea even if it fails and lobby for them. It of course affects local politics and activists which are trying to make various ideas happen.
It's not perfect, and sometimes it fails. Arborists are doing periodical inspections yet there is always room for error. Inspections won't prevent strong wind from breaking branch off) but it usually keeps thing together.
Commercial entities (kindergartens, schools, etc.) present themselves as well equipped by showing they have well equipped playground or other amenities. Those are filled quicker than those not having one and I've seen instances where few commercial entities decided to create a shared commercial playground. Some are pay-to-enter so it's even simpler.
Public ones are more complicated. I know for instance, that where I live there are annual calls for social projects which are voted upon by community and payed for using tax money. There's plethora of them and while budget for the winner projects is limited quite often there are groups trying to push their idea even if it fails and lobby for them. It of course affects local politics and activists which are trying to make various ideas happen.
It's not perfect, and sometimes it fails. Arborists are doing periodical inspections yet there is always room for error. Inspections won't prevent strong wind from breaking branch off) but it usually keeps thing together.
Also, depending on which European country you are in there might be certain places where it is required.
In the German speaking parts of Europe for example if a large apartment building or a whole complex of those is built it might be mandated by law to have a playground within a certain distance.
In the German speaking parts of Europe for example if a large apartment building or a whole complex of those is built it might be mandated by law to have a playground within a certain distance.
I fully agree. Also, this nicely highlights differences in the average mentality between EU and US in multiple areas:
Health care: It's private in the US, but government-run in most of the EU. Weapons: You can sell weapons in the US because the new owner is expected to be a responsible citizen. In the EU, who you may sell to is strictly controlled by government rules. Drugs: The FDA will let you sell almost literal poison, as long as you mark the ingredients clearly on the box. The EU has much stricter rules for what may be sold to the general public.
In general, US laws are built around the idea that your average citizen is a responsible adult. The EU, on the other hand, is built around the idea that most people need guidance to do the right thing. I dislike the EU system because it limits my freedom. But looking at social media, I feel like the US assumption that most people are responsible adults is simply not true anymore. Maybe by now, we need to treat most people like kids, for their own good ...
Oh and I believe it's absolutely appropriate for parents to sue social media companies if they screw up the age check. What they are doing is akin to putting bottles of poisoned water in a public place. It's just that their poison is psychological. At the very least, we can hold them responsible to keep it out of reach of children who simply don't understand the issues yet.
Health care: It's private in the US, but government-run in most of the EU. Weapons: You can sell weapons in the US because the new owner is expected to be a responsible citizen. In the EU, who you may sell to is strictly controlled by government rules. Drugs: The FDA will let you sell almost literal poison, as long as you mark the ingredients clearly on the box. The EU has much stricter rules for what may be sold to the general public.
In general, US laws are built around the idea that your average citizen is a responsible adult. The EU, on the other hand, is built around the idea that most people need guidance to do the right thing. I dislike the EU system because it limits my freedom. But looking at social media, I feel like the US assumption that most people are responsible adults is simply not true anymore. Maybe by now, we need to treat most people like kids, for their own good ...
Oh and I believe it's absolutely appropriate for parents to sue social media companies if they screw up the age check. What they are doing is akin to putting bottles of poisoned water in a public place. It's just that their poison is psychological. At the very least, we can hold them responsible to keep it out of reach of children who simply don't understand the issues yet.
>But looking at social media, I feel like the US assumption that most people are responsible adults is simply not true anymore. Maybe by now, we need to treat most people like kids, for their own good ...
I argue they never were to begin with, but I still fundamentally disagree with the stance that the government should control private consumption.
>Oh and I believe it's absolutely appropriate for parents to sue social media companies if they screw up the age check
I don't. I see it more as suing a candy store for giving kids cavities. Candy is inherently bad and unnecessary ~~Just like Alcohol, oh wait...~~ But not poisonous ~~alcohol is tho~~.
Teach them moderation. Be it with video games, food, or now social media. There is no activity that is safe for you when done in excess, so better to get that lesson instilled ASAP instead of blaming the rest of the world for your problems. It's a good universal lesson to have since you can't protect kids from every bad factor of the world.
I argue they never were to begin with, but I still fundamentally disagree with the stance that the government should control private consumption.
>Oh and I believe it's absolutely appropriate for parents to sue social media companies if they screw up the age check
I don't. I see it more as suing a candy store for giving kids cavities. Candy is inherently bad and unnecessary ~~Just like Alcohol, oh wait...~~ But not poisonous ~~alcohol is tho~~.
Teach them moderation. Be it with video games, food, or now social media. There is no activity that is safe for you when done in excess, so better to get that lesson instilled ASAP instead of blaming the rest of the world for your problems. It's a good universal lesson to have since you can't protect kids from every bad factor of the world.
[deleted]
Ok, if you make that point please point me towards data on how the EU is actually better as a society or way to run countries.
How much innovation comes out of the eu? How many unicorns have they produced vs the rest of the world? How are the economies of European countries looking in terms of growth vs the rest of the world? How is the percent of global gdp for the eu looking over the last few years?
How much innovation comes out of the eu? How many unicorns have they produced vs the rest of the world? How are the economies of European countries looking in terms of growth vs the rest of the world? How is the percent of global gdp for the eu looking over the last few years?
You could start by looking at average life expectancy, income inequality, education, literacy rate (the US is shockingly bad here), and health care access.
As for "innovation" and "unicorns", the US has done well, but a lot of the best examples have been European immigrants to the US.
When the chips were really down, in the Manhattan Project, who did the US rely on? Overwhelmingly it was Europeans who emigrated to the US: Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, James Franck, Edward Teller, Rudolf Peierls, and Klaus Fuchs. The US would not exist if they hadn't. So let's not get too cocky.
As for "innovation" and "unicorns", the US has done well, but a lot of the best examples have been European immigrants to the US.
When the chips were really down, in the Manhattan Project, who did the US rely on? Overwhelmingly it was Europeans who emigrated to the US: Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, James Franck, Edward Teller, Rudolf Peierls, and Klaus Fuchs. The US would not exist if they hadn't. So let's not get too cocky.
Much less homelessness, for starters.
Also, not every useful innovation can be measured in unicorn dollars ;) Facebook has a massive market cap, yet it arguably just makes everyone less happy.
Also, not every useful innovation can be measured in unicorn dollars ;) Facebook has a massive market cap, yet it arguably just makes everyone less happy.
Try again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
The US is no outlier, in fact it has a lower homeless rate than Germany and Sweden.
The US is no outlier, in fact it has a lower homeless rate than Germany and Sweden.
Because Germany counts people with a government-provided home as homeless, too, while the US does not.
Absolutely not, we don't need any more of that.
I've lived in Europe my entire life and things just got worse regulation wise. Every year it feels more and more like living in a totalitarian regime.
Social media is a tool like any other, the problem is that parents aren't there to educate kids. Oftentimes because both parents are working or because they're single parents.
I've lived in Europe my entire life and things just got worse regulation wise. Every year it feels more and more like living in a totalitarian regime.
Social media is a tool like any other, the problem is that parents aren't there to educate kids. Oftentimes because both parents are working or because they're single parents.
In my childhood, half of Europe was literally a totalitarian regime, including the bit I moved to recently.
I’ve been to the Stasi museum; I think they’d have lusted over the surveillance capacity of even just the data analytics in the tracking cookies whose cargo-culted consent [0] popups are merely the most visible consequence.
Being able to read direct messages from or to any person, just by court order? Convincing everyone to take photos of everyone around them continuously, with location and time metadata added automatically by the camera, and having an AI that can recognise specific faces in the entire dataset?
They’d think every charismas came at once.
But the rules and regulations? Not so much. And I’m saying that even though there’s a few specific ones I’m quite unhappy about.
[0] they’re not needed for things strictly necessary for functionality (like this website and GitHub), but if you do need them then you need non-coerced consent so the “no” needs to be as easy to click as the “yes”
I’ve been to the Stasi museum; I think they’d have lusted over the surveillance capacity of even just the data analytics in the tracking cookies whose cargo-culted consent [0] popups are merely the most visible consequence.
Being able to read direct messages from or to any person, just by court order? Convincing everyone to take photos of everyone around them continuously, with location and time metadata added automatically by the camera, and having an AI that can recognise specific faces in the entire dataset?
They’d think every charismas came at once.
But the rules and regulations? Not so much. And I’m saying that even though there’s a few specific ones I’m quite unhappy about.
[0] they’re not needed for things strictly necessary for functionality (like this website and GitHub), but if you do need them then you need non-coerced consent so the “no” needs to be as easy to click as the “yes”
> every charismas came at once
And now I can’t edit it, I spot the typo; should be “every Christmas came at once.”
And now I can’t edit it, I spot the typo; should be “every Christmas came at once.”
I don’t know, it might be a silly idea. But have you ever thought that parents should be responsible for their children?
The only thing that the EU has done is make web browsing worse by forcing a damn cookie popup on every damn website.
The only thing that the EU has done is make web browsing worse by forcing a damn cookie popup on every damn website.
Parents can’t control the social landscape their children are born into. Sure, you can try to block the apps and socially isolate them if you care more about making a statement than their emotional wellbeing.
Alternatively we can admit that there is an issue with the amount of power and influence given to a few companies who have privatized all normal communication, especially for the younger generation. There is a reality of psychological and sociological harm that can’t be mitigated by taking your children fishing and giving them a few stern lectures. Full grown adults can’t even fight being manipulated by these apps.
Alternatively we can admit that there is an issue with the amount of power and influence given to a few companies who have privatized all normal communication, especially for the younger generation. There is a reality of psychological and sociological harm that can’t be mitigated by taking your children fishing and giving them a few stern lectures. Full grown adults can’t even fight being manipulated by these apps.
Parents have been trying to outlaw things “for the children” all the way from rock n roll to rap music to video games
Companies have not “privatized communication” besides “Facebook is for old people”. Are we going to have the government legislate the algorithms companies use? I bet politicians would love to say that companies must prioritize whatever speech they are in favor of.
Companies have not “privatized communication” besides “Facebook is for old people”. Are we going to have the government legislate the algorithms companies use? I bet politicians would love to say that companies must prioritize whatever speech they are in favor of.
Ridiculous. The world is full of choices and kids need to learn how to make them. They don't learn that by being sheltered.
And regarding power to a few companies: that's how it's always been.
And regarding power to a few companies: that's how it's always been.
There's a balance. We don't let 13 year old kids drink alcohol, have sex, take drugs, drive cars, own guns, vote etc. Gradual exposure to responsibility, or harmful / addictive experiences isn't "sheltered", it's "responsible parenting". Jeez, I wouldn't even let my friend smoke "the strong weed" and he's 46.
"Doom scrolling" didn't exist when I was a kid and I'm glad it didn't. I would never have developed a love of computers. The closest thing I had in the 80s was TV. 6 channels, and they all shut down at midnight and displayed a test signal. When they were "on" the content was mostly shit.
Infinite scroll on social media is designed to be addictive. What chance does a 13 year old have when most adults (who have outgrown their teenage desperation for social acceptance) can't control that addiction?
What happens when your kids is sent home from school because they assaulted someone or vandalized the school because it's a new cool thing on TikTok?
Next they're yelling that the you're a bigot based on some obscure heuristic that doesn't even make sense?
Ever tried using logic with someone who is 100% certain you're the bad guy because they've been brainwashed for 8 hours a day on an app?
What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up? For me it was music, slang and haircuts. These days it's self harm, coordinated vandalism, pornified ideas of bodies and sex. I know a lady who has a 16yo daughter who is bulimic... so are her whole clique.
"Doom scrolling" didn't exist when I was a kid and I'm glad it didn't. I would never have developed a love of computers. The closest thing I had in the 80s was TV. 6 channels, and they all shut down at midnight and displayed a test signal. When they were "on" the content was mostly shit.
Infinite scroll on social media is designed to be addictive. What chance does a 13 year old have when most adults (who have outgrown their teenage desperation for social acceptance) can't control that addiction?
What happens when your kids is sent home from school because they assaulted someone or vandalized the school because it's a new cool thing on TikTok?
Next they're yelling that the you're a bigot based on some obscure heuristic that doesn't even make sense?
Ever tried using logic with someone who is 100% certain you're the bad guy because they've been brainwashed for 8 hours a day on an app?
What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up? For me it was music, slang and haircuts. These days it's self harm, coordinated vandalism, pornified ideas of bodies and sex. I know a lady who has a 16yo daughter who is bulimic... so are her whole clique.
Why does a 13 years old have access to social media?
As you mention, we don't let kids drink alcohol at 13.
My kids can call me a bigot and hate me as much as they want, it won't change the fact I am the parent and I decide what's right for them until they're of age.
When I was growing up there was already vandalism, porn, unrealistic body image (bodybuilders for guys, anorexic models for girls), heavy underage drinking and goth cutting themselves.
The only difference in today's world is that we celebrate people with mental illnesses for political purposes.
Teaching your kids what the media say is mostly biased BS and forbidding them from using social media is not too hard.
As you mention, we don't let kids drink alcohol at 13.
My kids can call me a bigot and hate me as much as they want, it won't change the fact I am the parent and I decide what's right for them until they're of age.
When I was growing up there was already vandalism, porn, unrealistic body image (bodybuilders for guys, anorexic models for girls), heavy underage drinking and goth cutting themselves.
The only difference in today's world is that we celebrate people with mental illnesses for political purposes.
Teaching your kids what the media say is mostly biased BS and forbidding them from using social media is not too hard.
> Teaching your kids what the media say is mostly biased BS and forbidding them from using social media is not too hard.
1. Adults have pretty bad impulse control.
2. But kids or teenagers have even worse impulse control.
3. The prefrontal cortex, in charge of risk evaluation and decision making, matures when you're 25 years old (+/-).
4. These huge companies are built around addiction and getting network effects to set it. They have huge marketing budgets and a lot of money to lobby governments.
What's I'm saying is: good luck getting the average kid to break a habit even many adults can't. And when the human brain, on average, fails ("don't drink and drive!"), we introduce laws to fix that. Personal responsibility only takes us so far, because we're human and fallible.
1. Adults have pretty bad impulse control.
2. But kids or teenagers have even worse impulse control.
3. The prefrontal cortex, in charge of risk evaluation and decision making, matures when you're 25 years old (+/-).
4. These huge companies are built around addiction and getting network effects to set it. They have huge marketing budgets and a lot of money to lobby governments.
What's I'm saying is: good luck getting the average kid to break a habit even many adults can't. And when the human brain, on average, fails ("don't drink and drive!"), we introduce laws to fix that. Personal responsibility only takes us so far, because we're human and fallible.
How has that whole “War on Drugs” been working out with stopping kids from doing drugs?
I don't know how it's doing but that's cherry picking.
We have a ton of bans for a ton of stuff in a ton of countries and they seem to work.
The burden on proof is on you to prove they're all wrong.
We have a ton of bans for a ton of stuff in a ton of countries and they seem to work.
The burden on proof is on you to prove they're all wrong.
Name one thing that the US government has “banned” that people wanted where it has been effective?
And why would you want government control over what you can see and say?
And why would you want government control over what you can see and say?
> Name one thing that the US government has “banned” that people wanted where it has been effective?
The world is more than the US.
> And why would you want government control over what you can see and say?
Because this is not just about me, it's about society as a whole.
And humans can be horrible:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...
The world is more than the US.
> And why would you want government control over what you can see and say?
Because this is not just about me, it's about society as a whole.
And humans can be horrible:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...
“Effective”, or “perfect”? Because almost everything every government does, good and ill, is not the second but it is the first. Totally ineffective bans certainly exist, but they are much rarer — even in the case of drugs, unless your pharmacy is currently selling cocaine 'Toothache Drops', or heroin or morphine cough syrup.
That's the point. those are all not allowed, some kids do it anyway. Hard restrictions don't actually protect kids but make them more curious.
>Ever tried using logic with someone who is 100% certain you're the bad guy because they've been brainwashed for 8 hours a day on an app?
it sucks yea. But if it wasn't facebook, it'd be any other form of ad made in the past century. including "news" channels
>What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up?
TV and Video games were the new hotness, but all those were common too. cutting yourself as some perverted idea of "goth culture", body image issues from magazine and mannequins, graffiti, and yes, sex (that's a factor as old as time).
Same shit, different outfit.
>Ever tried using logic with someone who is 100% certain you're the bad guy because they've been brainwashed for 8 hours a day on an app?
it sucks yea. But if it wasn't facebook, it'd be any other form of ad made in the past century. including "news" channels
>What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up?
TV and Video games were the new hotness, but all those were common too. cutting yourself as some perverted idea of "goth culture", body image issues from magazine and mannequins, graffiti, and yes, sex (that's a factor as old as time).
Same shit, different outfit.
> We don't let 13 year old kids drink alcohol, have sex, take drugs,
Yes because we passed laws, we stopped drug use and alcohol use by children and they aren’t having sex…
> What happens when your kids is sent home from school because they assaulted someone or vandalized the school because it's a new cool thing on TikTok?
Yes because fighting in school and vandalizing property was never a thing before TikTok.
> What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up?
Yes because before the internet there wasn’t mass hysteria like the Salem witch trials or within my parents lifetime @running all of the Black people out of the city to protect our wome
Yes because we passed laws, we stopped drug use and alcohol use by children and they aren’t having sex…
> What happens when your kids is sent home from school because they assaulted someone or vandalized the school because it's a new cool thing on TikTok?
Yes because fighting in school and vandalizing property was never a thing before TikTok.
> What was the big "social contagion" when you were growing up?
Yes because before the internet there wasn’t mass hysteria like the Salem witch trials or within my parents lifetime @running all of the Black people out of the city to protect our wome
Try telling that to your 13 year old daughter when every one of her friend group is congregating on social app du jure.
Being a parent is all about teaching boundaries.
I hated my parents for forbidding me to do things I wanted; from having a phone to not going to party when I was too young.
I ended up having a phone and partying later on and I eventually came to hate both after a few years.
Now that I grew up, I'm glad they stopped me from entering that world too early, I'm glad I tried and I'm glad I'm done with it.
I hated my parents for forbidding me to do things I wanted; from having a phone to not going to party when I was too young.
I ended up having a phone and partying later on and I eventually came to hate both after a few years.
Now that I grew up, I'm glad they stopped me from entering that world too early, I'm glad I tried and I'm glad I'm done with it.
And you’re getting downvoted. A very sad state of affairs that this post is what gets downvoted nowadays.
Edit: perhaps ppl downvoting should ask their local psychologist about boundaries and why they’re important
Edit: perhaps ppl downvoting should ask their local psychologist about boundaries and why they’re important
Yes because parents “setting boundaries” have stop kids from doing drugs, alcohol, having pre-marital sex, etc.
You are presumably an adult. Are your friends only within one year of age? Unlikely. That this happens for children is a consequence of our morally-bankrupt "education" system which isolates children away from the community and only with people the same age for socialization (of which teenagers are known to be poor at). The same way you can't blame an individual for not walking places in, say, Atlanta, because the path between two locations is interrupted by a highway; or you stop all fires from burning in a forest which has had fires for thousands of years then wonder why the fires are so intense; it's silly to point to social media being the primary issue why teens are bad at socializing when it's a direct consequence of your society to concentrate together people with wild hormones without a moderating influence.
You realize peer pressure has always been a thing right? We should have a “War on Social Media”, have the First Lady head a “Just Say No” campaign, and have commercials about “this is your brain on FaceBook”. Because that worked so well last time.
But now, the government will get it right.
But now, the government will get it right.
So let children make a choice around fire or knives? I guess evolution will weed out the stupid ones right?
Good parenting is partly about guiding our children to make good choices. This thread is discussing how we do that, and what good choices might look like.
Good parenting is partly about guiding our children to make good choices. This thread is discussing how we do that, and what good choices might look like.
parents vs marketing behemoths which also builds massive peer pressure. Wonder how that battle ends?
So all we need is the First Lady leading a “Just Say No” campaign since that worked so well fighting “peer pressure” about drug use.
There has always been peer pressure and parents have mostly loss that battle. Even with government intervention.
There has always been peer pressure and parents have mostly loss that battle. Even with government intervention.
With the creation of the He-Man She-Ra Christmas special.
[deleted]
Humans in general are terrible at making choices. That's the whole reason every company needs a marketing department.
...That reason being to encourage people to make bad choices which make the company money?
So are we going to outlaw everything that allows people to make bad choices about their own lives “for the children”?
Yes, of course.
What about the model where _society_ is responsible for children ?
Imagine your kids play down the street, they’re about to go in an area with a lot of cars and a stranger passing by tells them its dangerous and go to the park ?
Or your kids receive a ton of ads for gambling apps on youtube and you have recourse to make it stop instead of cutting your kids from the only viable video platform outside of tiktok ?
Society is literally dead without children, why can’t it be safer for them in general ?
Imagine your kids play down the street, they’re about to go in an area with a lot of cars and a stranger passing by tells them its dangerous and go to the park ?
Or your kids receive a ton of ads for gambling apps on youtube and you have recourse to make it stop instead of cutting your kids from the only viable video platform outside of tiktok ?
Society is literally dead without children, why can’t it be safer for them in general ?
I agree, but this stuff is like crack-cocaine. Until you've tried to
separate kids from deliberately addictive tech it feels easy to just
say "parents should take responsibility". They should. And as a
parent I do. But parents need help.
I watched a documentary about China where they have technology addiction boot camps. I supposed it would be biased toward "see what fascists the Chinese are...locking up kids for gaming too much", but within 5 minutes I changed my mind and could see a very different side.
If parents give their kids smartphones and let them go wild on social media - because they feel unable to help their children against highly addictive behaviours - then they need societal backup and education to be better parents. It's hard enough just clothing and feeding those little ones.
This stuff is destroying the lives of young people. And we made it!
In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol. That way, governments can take a... like you know... _ACTUAL_ _MORAL_ position on it.
Schools can be funded to message kids early and proprietors can feel emboldened to ban people from using technology in places (as in the UK where some pubs and gyms ban phones). We can get doctors and counsellors on board and fund public health awareness.
The _real_ problem is governments are conflicted. They want social media. It's a useful surveillance and control mechanism. And to some degree a suppressant. I wrote a fair bit about here [1]
[1] http://digitalvegan.net
I watched a documentary about China where they have technology addiction boot camps. I supposed it would be biased toward "see what fascists the Chinese are...locking up kids for gaming too much", but within 5 minutes I changed my mind and could see a very different side.
If parents give their kids smartphones and let them go wild on social media - because they feel unable to help their children against highly addictive behaviours - then they need societal backup and education to be better parents. It's hard enough just clothing and feeding those little ones.
This stuff is destroying the lives of young people. And we made it!
In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol. That way, governments can take a... like you know... _ACTUAL_ _MORAL_ position on it.
Schools can be funded to message kids early and proprietors can feel emboldened to ban people from using technology in places (as in the UK where some pubs and gyms ban phones). We can get doctors and counsellors on board and fund public health awareness.
The _real_ problem is governments are conflicted. They want social media. It's a useful surveillance and control mechanism. And to some degree a suppressant. I wrote a fair bit about here [1]
[1] http://digitalvegan.net
> In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol
I personally wouldn’t go that far but agree with your logic. If we come to the conclusion that something is bad for every member of our society, the course of action shouldn’t be to shield children from it but to straight regulate at a seller level.
For lighter approaches, I think there should be higher barriers to pay money virtual goods in game, and dark patterns should have more protection (automatic refunds on proven bad behaviors of an app could be a thing for instance)
I personally wouldn’t go that far but agree with your logic. If we come to the conclusion that something is bad for every member of our society, the course of action shouldn’t be to shield children from it but to straight regulate at a seller level.
For lighter approaches, I think there should be higher barriers to pay money virtual goods in game, and dark patterns should have more protection (automatic refunds on proven bad behaviors of an app could be a thing for instance)
How has government regulating tobacco and alcohol worked out ?
You remember that whole “Prohibition” thing don’t you?
You remember that whole “Prohibition” thing don’t you?
Tobacco regulation worked exactly the way govs wanted it to work: keep making money while putting the blame on the buyers.
On alcohol, I think current policies are decently balanced. There could be more education on its effects and work around the driving part, but we’re in an better place than when there was no gov. intervention at all I think.
On alcohol, I think current policies are decently balanced. There could be more education on its effects and work around the driving part, but we’re in an better place than when there was no gov. intervention at all I think.
So adults are forced to buy cigarettes? Should the government ban everything that is unhealthy?
If you think government regulations when it comes to alcohol has done anything, you haven’t seen the statistics on underage alcohol use.
If you think government regulations when it comes to alcohol has done anything, you haven’t seen the statistics on underage alcohol use.
Looking it up, 60% having "at least one drink" by 18 (33% by 15) seems surprisingly low. It probably explodes in the 18-20 range because of college, however.
Doesn’t every single bad law trying to regulate media whether it be to ban rap music because four guys in LA release an album with “F%^%* the Police” on it or because a video game “induces violence” start with “think about the children”?
You are free as a parent to try to shelter your children from harm.
You are free as a parent to try to shelter your children from harm.
Political slogans are famously the opposite of what they claim. We get “Save Our Green Earth” polluting bills, “Freedom and Peace” wider incarceration bills, and as you point out “Think about the children” mantra thrown around for anything and everything, with nothing in it actually about children.
Also if we really think that video games induce violence, it’s interesting to think about why we want them played by 20+ yo grow ups who can cause actual harm at a non trivial scale.
Also if we really think that video games induce violence, it’s interesting to think about why we want them played by 20+ yo grow ups who can cause actual harm at a non trivial scale.
Looking around at the “society” in the south where I live, I would rather them not be responsible for my kids.
This is the same “society” that routinely post messages to NextDoor because my son “looks suspicious” walking in our neighborhood in the burbs and walking into our house.
This is the same “society” that routinely post messages to NextDoor because my son “looks suspicious” walking in our neighborhood in the burbs and walking into our house.
- If they aren't old enough to not wander off, they shouldn't be playing in the street without supervision.
- Use adblock. But even with it I wouldn't let my children use Youtube or Tiktok. They shouldn't be spending that time behind a screen.
I've seen acquaintances use iPads as nannies for their children ("have to do the dishes, here's mum's iPad") and I find that grossly irresponsible. Why would you want your kids to have access to an online video platform anyway? Until they capable of discerning what's worth their time I don't think it's healthy for them to have access. And I have to admit that I'm still having a hard time discerning what's worth my time.
- Use adblock. But even with it I wouldn't let my children use Youtube or Tiktok. They shouldn't be spending that time behind a screen.
I've seen acquaintances use iPads as nannies for their children ("have to do the dishes, here's mum's iPad") and I find that grossly irresponsible. Why would you want your kids to have access to an online video platform anyway? Until they capable of discerning what's worth their time I don't think it's healthy for them to have access. And I have to admit that I'm still having a hard time discerning what's worth my time.
> If they aren't old enough to not wander off, they shouldn't be playing in the street without supervision.
This has truth in it, but in my opinion the pendulum swung way too far on one side. We live in times were the cops will bring back a kid that is found to be playing alone in a park. Or whole services cutting off 13- yo from their platform (yes I know, COPPA and everything) because they can’t be bothered and nobody blames them for that.
A lot of people have I think an ideal of kids raised in a cocoon by their parents until they’re 13 or 18, and by the magic of their age kids can now freely roam and become full member of our society overnight. That’s now how it works, or I’d say that’s a horrible way to raise future members of society.
> They shouldn't be spending that time behind a screen.
A century and half ago, I think people would tell their kids to close their books and play outside. My parents were telling me to turn of my video games and play outside. Current parents are told to shut off screens, keep their kids off the street, and “supervise” them. Or are parents all supposed to hire actual human nannies ?
As a society, do we really want kids ? I think that’s how we’re telling people to not have kids.
This has truth in it, but in my opinion the pendulum swung way too far on one side. We live in times were the cops will bring back a kid that is found to be playing alone in a park. Or whole services cutting off 13- yo from their platform (yes I know, COPPA and everything) because they can’t be bothered and nobody blames them for that.
A lot of people have I think an ideal of kids raised in a cocoon by their parents until they’re 13 or 18, and by the magic of their age kids can now freely roam and become full member of our society overnight. That’s now how it works, or I’d say that’s a horrible way to raise future members of society.
> They shouldn't be spending that time behind a screen.
A century and half ago, I think people would tell their kids to close their books and play outside. My parents were telling me to turn of my video games and play outside. Current parents are told to shut off screens, keep their kids off the street, and “supervise” them. Or are parents all supposed to hire actual human nannies ?
As a society, do we really want kids ? I think that’s how we’re telling people to not have kids.
Did kids back in the day not have access to TVs and those “violent video games”? Every generation has their own “think about the children” fear mongering.
> The only thing that the EU has done is make web browsing worse by forcing a damn cookie popup on every damn website.
No, GDPR requires consent. How it can be obtained is at the site administrator's decision.
The GDPR even states that a lack of action (consent or refusal) cannot block further use of the site/app.
Don't blame the EU for "cookie popups" because the whole situation is the fault of the site owners - they are implementing the requirements incorrectly.
No, GDPR requires consent. How it can be obtained is at the site administrator's decision.
The GDPR even states that a lack of action (consent or refusal) cannot block further use of the site/app.
Don't blame the EU for "cookie popups" because the whole situation is the fault of the site owners - they are implementing the requirements incorrectly.
So whethee the law is bad or it is badly enforced - either way the government made life worse for people.
See also the “War on Drugs”.
See also the “War on Drugs”.
Even assuming that should be the case: how do you get that to happen? And if it doesn't happen, do we just sit back and do nothing?
> The only thing that the EU has done is make web browsing worse by forcing a damn cookie popup on every damn website.
GitHub doesn’t have one. HackerNews doesn’t have one. The requirement is to get consent for unnecessary data processing, and most of the popups don’t even meet the requirements of GDPR to be non-coercive.
GitHub doesn’t have one. HackerNews doesn’t have one. The requirement is to get consent for unnecessary data processing, and most of the popups don’t even meet the requirements of GDPR to be non-coercive.
Yet Stack Overflow does…
That tells you SO is doing not-strictly-necessary data analytics.
Which it admits directly when you click the cookie banner button labeled “Customise settings”: you are presented with four yes-no toggles, the first of which is labelled “Strictly Necessary” and which can’t be disabled.
IANAL but from what I’ve been told the SO banner isn’t even GDPR compliant because it makes it harder to reject unnecessary cookies than to accept all of them.
Which it admits directly when you click the cookie banner button labeled “Customise settings”: you are presented with four yes-no toggles, the first of which is labelled “Strictly Necessary” and which can’t be disabled.
IANAL but from what I’ve been told the SO banner isn’t even GDPR compliant because it makes it harder to reject unnecessary cookies than to accept all of them.
> That tells you SO is doing not-strictly-necessary data analytics.
That tells me that they don’t know. Making every part of the org prove that they aren’t is very expensive but doesn’t improve the service.
That tells me that they don’t know. Making every part of the org prove that they aren’t is very expensive but doesn’t improve the service.
The customise settings popup has an always-on item literally labelled “Strictly Necessary”.
If they apply that as on and everything else in that popup as off, they are in compliance with GDPR without having to show the popup.
Unless that setting is misleading, but then they are not in compliance even despite showing the popup, even if they fix the problem I raised previously.
If they apply that as on and everything else in that popup as off, they are in compliance with GDPR without having to show the popup.
Unless that setting is misleading, but then they are not in compliance even despite showing the popup, even if they fix the problem I raised previously.
The difference is that you are suing for direct harm caused. The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused.
Very different.
Very different.
> The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused.
Some would say that the fetus losing its life is a bit harmful.
Some would say that the fetus losing its life is a bit harmful.
>The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused.
Are you sure about that? Because not even Doctors are sure about it, but most accept it as a ~acceptable Trade-off.
In the end you kill a future-human, being not against abortion, i would also not take it lightly, and the potentially harmed individual cannot speak for itself.
Are you sure about that? Because not even Doctors are sure about it, but most accept it as a ~acceptable Trade-off.
In the end you kill a future-human, being not against abortion, i would also not take it lightly, and the potentially harmed individual cannot speak for itself.
I'm going to clarify since other replies so far seem to be missing this, but the claim is not that no harmable being is harmed by an abortion. The creature being aborted certainly gets harmed, though case law up until now has said its right to not be harmed does not supersede the right of its host to not host it.
The novel thing about this law is that, normally, the person bringing a suit has to have been harmed by the person they're suing. If someone burns down your house, you can sue them. I can't, even though a person was harmed by the act. The abortion law allows anyone at all to sue on behalf of an aborted fetus, even though the person bringing the suit was not harmed.
The novel thing about this law is that, normally, the person bringing a suit has to have been harmed by the person they're suing. If someone burns down your house, you can sue them. I can't, even though a person was harmed by the act. The abortion law allows anyone at all to sue on behalf of an aborted fetus, even though the person bringing the suit was not harmed.
Please read the guidelines and don’t post such obvious flame bait.
> Eschew flamebait.
> Eschew flamebait.
Letting everybody sue everyone else until we all get what we want is a
kind of end-stage neoliberalism (individualisation of the
legislature).
To call yourself a "government", at some point you need to take a stand that contains actual values.
One can understand why California would not like to go directly against BigTech as we are in Europe. And any fixed laws will quickly go out of date in a fast world. So more fundamental principles must be addressed. Positive and enabling policies are always better.
To call yourself a "government", at some point you need to take a stand that contains actual values.
One can understand why California would not like to go directly against BigTech as we are in Europe. And any fixed laws will quickly go out of date in a fast world. So more fundamental principles must be addressed. Positive and enabling policies are always better.
I don’t see how this system is obviously worse. Relying on a government that changes every 4 years, who are incompetent at almost everything (just take a look at the social media hearing in Congress), to police extremely complex and fast moving new markets?
Is that really better than letting money hungry lawyers put together class action lawsuits related to actual damages?
I just don’t see how it’s obvious that one is better than the other.
Is that really better than letting money hungry lawyers put together class action lawsuits related to actual damages?
I just don’t see how it’s obvious that one is better than the other.
Because the alternative costs $$$ and is only accessible to the rich?
The government doesn't change every 4 years, just the figurehead and on the average he changes every 8 years.
The average is probably a little higher than 6 not quite 7(I’d guess)
There's too many lawyers, it wouldn't be a problem if law school was cheaper but the fact that so many of them have big student loan debts means they have to find reasons to sue people in order to pay of those bills.
Yes, it's those evil schools making all the lawyers greedy, when lawyers would otherwise just sit around hoping that no one would need their services.
This isn't happening because of a glut of lawyers. This is happening because some people wanted to make an end-run around settled precedent, SCOTUS decided to humor them for some reason, and now all manner of nonsense is being attempted, because why not? Apparently it's okay to make a law that completely nullifies people's constitutional rights, and SCOTUS will let that just sit on the books while they take their time with their review.
This is a huge loophole in the law and the justice system. Apparently there is some set of laws such that if written the right way, they can be completely and blatantly unconstitutional yet still remain in effect. This is effectively a backdoor around the constitution, and the question right now is: which laws will SCOTUS refuse to stay? And how much damage can we do in the interim period when the law has been challenged but neither overturned nor stayed? How much can we get away with?
This is a huge loophole in the law and the justice system. Apparently there is some set of laws such that if written the right way, they can be completely and blatantly unconstitutional yet still remain in effect. This is effectively a backdoor around the constitution, and the question right now is: which laws will SCOTUS refuse to stay? And how much damage can we do in the interim period when the law has been challenged but neither overturned nor stayed? How much can we get away with?
The dirty secret is that civil lawsuits and common law are a constitutional blind spot. So much of the constitution only really applies to state actors[0], which means that private litigants are relatively unrestrained[1] in their ability to wield state power against other private litigants. In other words, the constitution doesn't care about your rights until and unless it means you being put behind bars.
The reason why SCOTUS is humoring Texas is because actually stopping their legal shenaniganery requires legislating a whole new tort reform regime from the bench. 'Cause that's the only thing that would really work to stop Texas: ending or severely curtailing "private AG"[2] causes of action in the law. But that also means rolling back a lot of legal liability that corporations otherwise would have for their actions. Balancing this properly would be difficult - it's something that Congress really should be doing, not the Supreme Court... but they never did, so now here we are.
[0] "State actors" means all levels of government plus private corporations acting in the role of a government.
[1] For starters, the 5th Amendment does not apply to civil litigation. If the government wants to throw you in jail for 10 years for making counterfeit Mickey Mouse merch, you are allowed to refuse to testify and the court cannot assume your guilt from a refusal to testify. However, if Disney sued you for $10,000,000 for the same tort, you can be forced to testify against yourself and refusal to do so will result in an "adverse inference" being placed upon you.
[2] Laws which allow private individuals to bring class action lawsuits on behalf of some public interest, in lieu of the US government prosecuting them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general
The reason why SCOTUS is humoring Texas is because actually stopping their legal shenaniganery requires legislating a whole new tort reform regime from the bench. 'Cause that's the only thing that would really work to stop Texas: ending or severely curtailing "private AG"[2] causes of action in the law. But that also means rolling back a lot of legal liability that corporations otherwise would have for their actions. Balancing this properly would be difficult - it's something that Congress really should be doing, not the Supreme Court... but they never did, so now here we are.
[0] "State actors" means all levels of government plus private corporations acting in the role of a government.
[1] For starters, the 5th Amendment does not apply to civil litigation. If the government wants to throw you in jail for 10 years for making counterfeit Mickey Mouse merch, you are allowed to refuse to testify and the court cannot assume your guilt from a refusal to testify. However, if Disney sued you for $10,000,000 for the same tort, you can be forced to testify against yourself and refusal to do so will result in an "adverse inference" being placed upon you.
[2] Laws which allow private individuals to bring class action lawsuits on behalf of some public interest, in lieu of the US government prosecuting them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general
This has nothing to do with SCOTUS or avoiding legal review. California has been doing this for over a decade, since they past the Private Attorneys General Act. It is a bad way to outsource bad policy to private citizens, and is a big handout to a powerful interest group, trial lawyers.
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private...
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private...
What's needed is more focus on building a healthy society and teaching people how to have balance in their lives, but that seems to be in direct conflict with mindless consumerism.
We can't have it both ways, and I suspect nothing much will change.
We can't have it both ways, and I suspect nothing much will change.
I don’t disagree with this, but I do sense that “teaching people how to have balance in their lives” only goes so far.
We’ve been trying to teach people how to be healthy, physically fit, to avoid substance abuse, and to spend money wisely but it seems that those lessons just don’t stick for most of the population. At some point intervention is needed beyond just teaching people the right way to live.
But I’m also weary of this because regulations can often be poorly thought-out, heavy handed, or unintentionally crafted to make the problem even worse.
We’ve been trying to teach people how to be healthy, physically fit, to avoid substance abuse, and to spend money wisely but it seems that those lessons just don’t stick for most of the population. At some point intervention is needed beyond just teaching people the right way to live.
But I’m also weary of this because regulations can often be poorly thought-out, heavy handed, or unintentionally crafted to make the problem even worse.
>We’ve been trying to teach people how to be healthy, physically fit, to avoid substance abuse, and to spend money wisely but it seems that those lessons just don’t stick for most of the population.
"you" may, but look at the wider statistics on what cities and demographics are most subject to the obesity crisis.
Spoilers: it's an economic problem. You give people a living wage without requiring two minimum wage jobs to pay rent, and allow some time in their life for extra curriculars, and suddenly grabbing a greasy burger on the way home isn't as impulsive a decision when given time to breath in life. And by extension, give more time to educate children and money to encourage a proper diet (tho lunch food is a whole other issue we need to tackle).
"you" may, but look at the wider statistics on what cities and demographics are most subject to the obesity crisis.
Spoilers: it's an economic problem. You give people a living wage without requiring two minimum wage jobs to pay rent, and allow some time in their life for extra curriculars, and suddenly grabbing a greasy burger on the way home isn't as impulsive a decision when given time to breath in life. And by extension, give more time to educate children and money to encourage a proper diet (tho lunch food is a whole other issue we need to tackle).
Except some payouts from social media companies to parents as a direct result.
It also opens up that parents can sue for other addictions such as soft drinks, candy and even alcohol and cigarettes.
A much saner way would be that parents educate their children and take responsibility.
It also opens up that parents can sue for other addictions such as soft drinks, candy and even alcohol and cigarettes.
A much saner way would be that parents educate their children and take responsibility.
I agree. I also suspect this path only leads to more restrictions and higher costs for everyone as companies will have to compensate somehow.
History rhymes: it was barely a decade ago California's violent video game ban made contact with the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
Trick question: based on the logic in that case, can you sell porn to under 18 year olds in the US?
How are they going to test it? This sounds more like state wanting to get their juice off the tech giants greedily but don't know how to do.
Hopefully people will soon see it's not the social media platforms, it's the people themselves who need to be fixed. Social media is just a tool, and if people don't change, it will just be replaced with something else and the cycle will go on and on.
Hopefully people will soon see it's not the social media platforms, it's the people themselves who need to be fixed. Social media is just a tool, and if people don't change, it will just be replaced with something else and the cycle will go on and on.
>Hopefully people will soon see it's not the drugs, it's the people themselves who need to be fixed. Drugs are just a tool, and if people don't change, it will just be replaced with something else and the cycle will go on and on.
Easy way to shift the blame if one has ever taken part in designing these products.
Hell I remember years ago on HN when that book about getting people hooked/addicted to an app was a popular book to discuss, making the analogy more true.
You’re right, maybe people are the problem. Just like how the Sacklers pushes their wares and hooked the masses so did SV
Easy way to shift the blame if one has ever taken part in designing these products.
Hell I remember years ago on HN when that book about getting people hooked/addicted to an app was a popular book to discuss, making the analogy more true.
You’re right, maybe people are the problem. Just like how the Sacklers pushes their wares and hooked the masses so did SV
Well, yeah drugs aren't the problem. Same analogy applies to drugs, "addictive" apps or anything that one may call addictive in any sense.
In the end it's the people who use them, you can't blame the creator of them as long as they don't lie about the product.
In the end it's the people who use them, you can't blame the creator of them as long as they don't lie about the product.
The opiate crisis is also largely a people problem. What the sackler's did was bad but it would have happened without them.
Like in this case, some reasonable regulations may help, but won't solve the problem
Like in this case, some reasonable regulations may help, but won't solve the problem
>> Hopefully people will soon see it's not the social media platforms, it's the people themselves who need to be fixed.
Same applies to drugs, smoking, gambling, drinking etc. but we recognise those things as potentially harmful and take steps to restrict them, regulate them, and make them as safe as we can (with varying degrees of success and failure obviously). Social media gets kids even earlier than most of the things I’ve listed above and the best we seem to have done is self-reporting your age to make sure you’re over 13. It’s embarrassing and I have no doubt that in 50 years we’ll be looking back at some of the people that worked on these platforms the same way we look at people who worked in the tobacco industry.
Same applies to drugs, smoking, gambling, drinking etc. but we recognise those things as potentially harmful and take steps to restrict them, regulate them, and make them as safe as we can (with varying degrees of success and failure obviously). Social media gets kids even earlier than most of the things I’ve listed above and the best we seem to have done is self-reporting your age to make sure you’re over 13. It’s embarrassing and I have no doubt that in 50 years we’ll be looking back at some of the people that worked on these platforms the same way we look at people who worked in the tobacco industry.
Yeah same applies to drugs, smoking, gambling and drinking too.
They might be potentially harmful, people should be informed about how they work and possible consequences, but going beyond and restricting/regulating is no-no.
And BTW I'm saying this as a person who know and have experienced their effects, don't really like to do them, and who has no interest or connections to any company in those fields.
They might be potentially harmful, people should be informed about how they work and possible consequences, but going beyond and restricting/regulating is no-no.
And BTW I'm saying this as a person who know and have experienced their effects, don't really like to do them, and who has no interest or connections to any company in those fields.
>> They might be potentially harmful, people should be informed about how they work and possible consequences, but going beyond and restricting/regulating is no-no.
So a child should be able to purchase booze, cocaine, heroin provided they are informed of the risks?
So a child should be able to purchase booze, cocaine, heroin provided they are informed of the risks?
Yup.
Again I'm not supporting any use of substances, but I think everyone of any age or gender should be deciding for their own when it comes to their body.
Again I'm not supporting any use of substances, but I think everyone of any age or gender should be deciding for their own when it comes to their body.
Yeah, those junkie 5 year olds really ought to take responsibility for their actions. I really hope you're trolling.
I'm not trolling. Though if their parents let them into situations where they can get heroin, it's the parents that need to take the blame.
>> if their parents let them into situations where they can get heroin, it's the parents that need to take the blame
That's very different to:
>> I think everyone of any age or gender should be deciding for their own when it comes to their body.
It also doesn't account for shitty parents.
That's very different to:
>> I think everyone of any age or gender should be deciding for their own when it comes to their body.
It also doesn't account for shitty parents.
Well anyone can decide for their own. But if someone, say 9, wants heroin, their parents should prevent this.
Shitty parents is definitely an issue though I still think we should focus on parents instead of ${potentially addictive service/substance provider}.
Yeah I might have not been clear on my first comment.
Shitty parents is definitely an issue though I still think we should focus on parents instead of ${potentially addictive service/substance provider}.
Yeah I might have not been clear on my first comment.
This is the same dodge massive polluters make: everyone needs to pitch in to solve this! Pay no attention to the few industries that are massively responsible. Recycling! Electric cars!
Consider that any biological entity alive today has a few billion years worth of behavior and instinct more or less hardwired into it. "Just change the people" isn't trivial and probably not possible. Artificial technologies like social media platforms, on the other hand, at least can be changed.
why do those companies employ teams of people doing A/B testing to maximize engagement?
We have PSAs for driving under the influence, vaping and teenage sex.
Do we have the same for doomscrolling on TikTok, Instagram mimetic induced depression and ghosting in online dating?
These are the problems the new generation is contending with and there seems to be a massive trivialization of them. Sure you can try to regulate social media and take legal action, but we need more social support and collective recognition of these issues
Do we have the same for doomscrolling on TikTok, Instagram mimetic induced depression and ghosting in online dating?
These are the problems the new generation is contending with and there seems to be a massive trivialization of them. Sure you can try to regulate social media and take legal action, but we need more social support and collective recognition of these issues
I'd add to this that there was a time when cocaine in the US was perfectly normal. Popes, Ulysses S Grant, Thomas Edison, and countless others advocated for Vin Mariani [1] which was a wine mixed with cocaine, that served as the inspiration for Coca-Kola (whose name derives from its original key components: cocaine/coca leaf + kola nut).
Thomas Edison remarked that the drink helped him awake longer. Oh indeed, Mr. Edison. The point is that it was so normalized that nobody would have really appreciated the consequences of it, especially when everybody was using it. The same seems to be true now a days with social media. People are hopelessly addicted, most people claim it makes them feel worse - yet they keep using it, and so on.
We're just entering into a new era of the world with the introduction of new addictive and harmful activities with the novel catch that the harm is not immediately obvious, as compared with something like gambling.
The only reasonable response I can see here is that what I'm saying could also have been applied to any new technological toy, such as television or even radio in times past. But again the big difference is harm. Many if not most people might have said they should probably waste less time watching television, yet few would have claimed it was genuinely personally damaging to themselves - yet nonetheless being unable to stop. Let alone the consequences on society that are far more specific and real than the ambiguous concerns that undoubtedly followed previous technologies.
Put more succinctly, there is a difference between television and social media in the same way that there is a difference between caffeine and cocaine. At some point the consequences of an enjoyable recreation outweigh the benefits of that recreation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani
Thomas Edison remarked that the drink helped him awake longer. Oh indeed, Mr. Edison. The point is that it was so normalized that nobody would have really appreciated the consequences of it, especially when everybody was using it. The same seems to be true now a days with social media. People are hopelessly addicted, most people claim it makes them feel worse - yet they keep using it, and so on.
We're just entering into a new era of the world with the introduction of new addictive and harmful activities with the novel catch that the harm is not immediately obvious, as compared with something like gambling.
The only reasonable response I can see here is that what I'm saying could also have been applied to any new technological toy, such as television or even radio in times past. But again the big difference is harm. Many if not most people might have said they should probably waste less time watching television, yet few would have claimed it was genuinely personally damaging to themselves - yet nonetheless being unable to stop. Let alone the consequences on society that are far more specific and real than the ambiguous concerns that undoubtedly followed previous technologies.
Put more succinctly, there is a difference between television and social media in the same way that there is a difference between caffeine and cocaine. At some point the consequences of an enjoyable recreation outweigh the benefits of that recreation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani
> whose name derives from its original key components: cocaine/coca leaf + kola nut
Funny how the addiction is spelled out in the title, yet it is probably the most recognizable beverage name in the world.
Funny how the addiction is spelled out in the title, yet it is probably the most recognizable beverage name in the world.
The part that is missing is how to render our society interesting to boys and girls. Boys have been going into computers since forever because society didn’t care about them and the computers are the only ones to answer nicely; Girls have been going to mobile phones since they had builtin cameras because society strokes their ego way too much through mobile apps; How do we build a society where boys can speak and girls can do?
Perhaps that’s what they are naturally inclined to do?
I liked "Whatever features within their algorithms that are creating the addictions, especially in teenagers — they can disable those features. That could be another thing."
The algorithm isn't trying to help, but YouTube or Reddit or FB or whatever is addicting anyways unless they design an algorithm explicitly to reduce engagement by giving you stuff you don't like.
The algorithm isn't trying to help, but YouTube or Reddit or FB or whatever is addicting anyways unless they design an algorithm explicitly to reduce engagement by giving you stuff you don't like.
> unless they design an algorithm explicitly to reduce engagement by giving you stuff you don't like.
I don't think they need to go that far. The algorithms could be optimized for long-term personal growth. Always pushing you to expand your boundaries in healthy ways. That kind of growth is usually mildly uncomfortable but rewarding. You'll only want so much of it per day. They'd be replacing endless cheap carbs with exercise.
I don't think they need to go that far. The algorithms could be optimized for long-term personal growth. Always pushing you to expand your boundaries in healthy ways. That kind of growth is usually mildly uncomfortable but rewarding. You'll only want so much of it per day. They'd be replacing endless cheap carbs with exercise.
Long term personal growth in what direction? And on Twitter? Facebook? Not to be dismissive but Twitter does what Twitter does best when people shout their opinions into a void or stick their job title up and LARP as the authority on X and Facebook does what Facebook does best when it filters blogs and baby photos to your newsfeed and you meet groups of people around a shared interest or hobby or arrange outings with large groups of people.
YouTube maybe could be optimized that way, but if the banners they stick in my way that take no feedback and accept no dismissal as an invitation to never return are any indication they would do a hatchet job tweaking their algorithm in that direction. What they do very well is introducing me to new music and interesting videos on old tech and games. Absolutely fantastic entertainment platform and probably no more addictive than television was but I feel like I’m also the only one that likes the YouTube algorithm.
Also that kind of tweak would just be paternalistic nonsense, on principle.
YouTube maybe could be optimized that way, but if the banners they stick in my way that take no feedback and accept no dismissal as an invitation to never return are any indication they would do a hatchet job tweaking their algorithm in that direction. What they do very well is introducing me to new music and interesting videos on old tech and games. Absolutely fantastic entertainment platform and probably no more addictive than television was but I feel like I’m also the only one that likes the YouTube algorithm.
Also that kind of tweak would just be paternalistic nonsense, on principle.
Ugh lol dude are you for real? Do you actually trust tech companies to decide what is best for a given persons personal growth?
do you trust the government to? That's all this is doing.
companies curate, but ultimately we're talking about user generated content, whose popularity at some point in life came from the fact that a lot of people chose to engage with it. The only difference now is that you dont need to be some a-list celebrity to get this engagement. A camera, an idea, and a bit of video editing can make you go viral.
even if we stripped down all the engagement algorithms and made it some "pure" HN-style "votes determine curation" (which is a trap in and of itself, but I diagress), you'd be surprised how similar the site layout would look. Arguably even worse because bigger creators get more views and likes by nature of being big.
companies curate, but ultimately we're talking about user generated content, whose popularity at some point in life came from the fact that a lot of people chose to engage with it. The only difference now is that you dont need to be some a-list celebrity to get this engagement. A camera, an idea, and a bit of video editing can make you go viral.
even if we stripped down all the engagement algorithms and made it some "pure" HN-style "votes determine curation" (which is a trap in and of itself, but I diagress), you'd be surprised how similar the site layout would look. Arguably even worse because bigger creators get more views and likes by nature of being big.
I don't trust either the government or tech companies. You shouldn't either. You should be free to make your own judgements without either interfering or manipulating you. I assume you're in America, after all?
I don't even want that sort of paternalism. With an old-school forum, you knew when you were "done", and you had to come back 12-24 hours later for enough other posters to have said anything worthwhile.
Like the in the Diamond Age but for Youtube
They could have tips that encourage breaks, or even have hard limits, they do not have to reduce quality necessarily. It could be an opportunity to introduce people to another product/site/app, 'now for something completely different'.
While I'm happy that something is being done to address the problems of social media; as an outsider I'm having a hard time understanding why every problem has to be solved with law suits in america.
When all you have is a hammer to solve problems, every problem starts to look like a nail.
Most social networks and related services are explicitly banning users below the age of 13. And it's parent's responsibility to control what services are their children using. So I don't see how this bill can possibly work.
Social media companies say you have to be over 13 to use the service, and then they fail to enforce their own rules a lot of the time. It's a disclaimer to avoid legal action by shifting responsibility to the user more than a real feature to stop children accessing their applications.
Laws like the one proposed in the article are a way to push social media companies to start enforcing those rules better.
Laws like the one proposed in the article are a way to push social media companies to start enforcing those rules better.
"Child" is defined as under 18 here, not 13.
It's a way to retroactively punish social media companies with 100s of billions in civil liability. Really nothing else, there's an absurdly easy way given to avoid future liability.
"Social media company" is also defined so broadly that SMS has to be specifically exempted, iMessage and Roblox probably fall under the law.
It's a way to retroactively punish social media companies with 100s of billions in civil liability. Really nothing else, there's an absurdly easy way given to avoid future liability.
"Social media company" is also defined so broadly that SMS has to be specifically exempted, iMessage and Roblox probably fall under the law.
I don't see any specific age given in the article. If they actually want to make things like YouTube inaccessible to teenagers, they are freaking nuts.
And yes, if they make YouTube liable for some vaguely defined harm towards teenagers, the only reasonable course of action for Google would be to completely ban teenagers from the platform.
And yes, if they make YouTube liable for some vaguely defined harm towards teenagers, the only reasonable course of action for Google would be to completely ban teenagers from the platform.
I grepped through the PDF of the bill and found this:
>“Child user” means a person who uses a social media platform and is not older than 17 years of age.
I was already wary of the bill in general, but thinking about parents suing Snapchat or Instagram over some high school drama (that would happen anyway, social media or not) seems to be almost dystopic from a technical point of view. Literally shooting the messenger.
----
Not sure if HN allows links to PDF's, but the first link of [this news article](https://dot.la/social-media-addiction-california-bill-265698...) will get you to the bill I found.
>“Child user” means a person who uses a social media platform and is not older than 17 years of age.
I was already wary of the bill in general, but thinking about parents suing Snapchat or Instagram over some high school drama (that would happen anyway, social media or not) seems to be almost dystopic from a technical point of view. Literally shooting the messenger.
----
Not sure if HN allows links to PDF's, but the first link of [this news article](https://dot.la/social-media-addiction-california-bill-265698...) will get you to the bill I found.
If they want to enforce age checks, they can just enforce age checks directly, like UK does with porn, not go around making social websites liable for some hard-to-prove harm.
Let social media companies sue parents for kids logging on.
holding American parents responsible for their own child's welfare? that'll be the day
What about Ad companies?
> the bill would first obligate social media companies to not addict child users
What would that mean?
> However, it said, there would also be a safe harbor provision that would protect “responsible” social media platforms from being penalized if they took “basic steps to avoid addicting children.”
That’s some wonky double talk…
If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
What would that mean?
> However, it said, there would also be a safe harbor provision that would protect “responsible” social media platforms from being penalized if they took “basic steps to avoid addicting children.”
That’s some wonky double talk…
If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
>What would that mean?
Ok, one example: implement such features as the "noprocrast" feature HN has. Normally companies don't have an incentive to do that, since they want you addicted even when you don't want to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3677390
> If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
The advantage of lawsuits vs. regulation is that the lawsuits can better adapt to changing technology and various things that can't be anticipated ahead of time, and is less likely to have loopholes and be gameable.
Creative features such as "noprocrast" can't really be regulated, but they can give protection to a company in a civil suit. I'm sure there are a lot of other features that could be developed as well that will help reduce addiction and reduce the tendency for "enragement to equal engagement".
Remember, the lawsuit happens after harm has allegedly been caused, and a judge or jury can use common sense to decide if the company has acted irresponsibly.
Neither is perfect, but there are certainly advantages of doing it this way.
Ok, one example: implement such features as the "noprocrast" feature HN has. Normally companies don't have an incentive to do that, since they want you addicted even when you don't want to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3677390
> If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
The advantage of lawsuits vs. regulation is that the lawsuits can better adapt to changing technology and various things that can't be anticipated ahead of time, and is less likely to have loopholes and be gameable.
Creative features such as "noprocrast" can't really be regulated, but they can give protection to a company in a civil suit. I'm sure there are a lot of other features that could be developed as well that will help reduce addiction and reduce the tendency for "enragement to equal engagement".
Remember, the lawsuit happens after harm has allegedly been caused, and a judge or jury can use common sense to decide if the company has acted irresponsibly.
Neither is perfect, but there are certainly advantages of doing it this way.
Conversely, hopelessly vague regulation like this ensures that big evil companies just implement ineffective token measures and then spend millions of dollars in court to determine which small tweaks to their small measures satisfy the given judge.
Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster, after a few years of legal proceedings of course.
Litigation has got to be the worst way to define new regulations. It's slow, expensive, and uncertain. It's also not as "adaptive" as you claim, because of the power of precedent – big weight given to past decisions. It also unfairly penalizes a small number of entities who have to bear the burden of litigation to resolve the regulatory questions for the benefit of the whole industry – and that goes for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The only reason litigation might look attractive in comparison is that the Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional – both the people in it, and their processes. Maybe that's what should be fixed for legislation to be better. Somehow.
Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster, after a few years of legal proceedings of course.
Litigation has got to be the worst way to define new regulations. It's slow, expensive, and uncertain. It's also not as "adaptive" as you claim, because of the power of precedent – big weight given to past decisions. It also unfairly penalizes a small number of entities who have to bear the burden of litigation to resolve the regulatory questions for the benefit of the whole industry – and that goes for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The only reason litigation might look attractive in comparison is that the Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional – both the people in it, and their processes. Maybe that's what should be fixed for legislation to be better. Somehow.
> Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster
That seems like how a company would game regulation, while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak".
Regardless, if facebook and instagram etc implemented something like that, it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
That seems like how a company would game regulation, while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak".
Regardless, if facebook and instagram etc implemented something like that, it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
>while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak".
yea, in a few years. By the time the case is settled, tech would already move on to the next big scheme to extract data or engagement.
I saw this in real time while the game industry was deliberating over the concept of lootboxes. Send out some lobbyists, convince the ESRB that they are fine, etc. The goal was just to stall for time, not win. By the time some countries started banning them, many studios already jumped ship to the "battle pass" model. They don't even care if lootboxes are banned anymore
The industry moves too fast to be penalized like this.
>it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
sure, just like how most social media talk about productive topics and recommend healthy, wholesome options in their feeds.
yea, in a few years. By the time the case is settled, tech would already move on to the next big scheme to extract data or engagement.
I saw this in real time while the game industry was deliberating over the concept of lootboxes. Send out some lobbyists, convince the ESRB that they are fine, etc. The goal was just to stall for time, not win. By the time some countries started banning them, many studios already jumped ship to the "battle pass" model. They don't even care if lootboxes are banned anymore
The industry moves too fast to be penalized like this.
>it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
sure, just like how most social media talk about productive topics and recommend healthy, wholesome options in their feeds.
> If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
Agreed. It seems a number of these bills are advancing through state legislatures. It started with the Texas abortion ban putting bounties on people who aid another in getting an abortion. SCOTUS had the opportunity to stop this practice dead in its tracks, but they decided to let it persist as the case waits to be heard by the court. Meanwhile, this gives everyone else latitude to pass their own "bounty" laws on any number of issues.
Agreed. It seems a number of these bills are advancing through state legislatures. It started with the Texas abortion ban putting bounties on people who aid another in getting an abortion. SCOTUS had the opportunity to stop this practice dead in its tracks, but they decided to let it persist as the case waits to be heard by the court. Meanwhile, this gives everyone else latitude to pass their own "bounty" laws on any number of issues.
> It started with the Texas abortion ban putting bounties on people who aid another in getting an abortion.
No, it has long been a part of US law; Texas just made the news.
No, it has long been a part of US law; Texas just made the news.
> What would that mean?
Based on my knowledge a lot of companies are hiring behavior specialist to actively increase user retention and engagement. Those are borderline addictive elements. I believe it’s more about getting caught and having to prove it wasn’t made to cause addiction or proper measures were made.
I don’t think one can catch all with precise list here and common law system helps with deciding that. Such regulation most likely wouldn’t work in civil law system without thick clarification tomes.
Based on my knowledge a lot of companies are hiring behavior specialist to actively increase user retention and engagement. Those are borderline addictive elements. I believe it’s more about getting caught and having to prove it wasn’t made to cause addiction or proper measures were made.
I don’t think one can catch all with precise list here and common law system helps with deciding that. Such regulation most likely wouldn’t work in civil law system without thick clarification tomes.
I grew up playing video games like Doom, Starcraft, and Descent. The games had violent content, but they didn't make me violent.
The games developed and got more habit-forming, and I spent more and more time on them. I played Counter-Strike online for thousands of hours. Most of those hours were not enjoyable. I lost 6 months of my life to EverQuest, an MMORPG. Never again. Many of my classmates in university played World of Warcraft for 3+ hours every day. Some played it instead of studying and failed out of university.
Now, habit-forming features are integrated into all kinds of software, including apps for children. Puzzle games earn more money than traditional gambling apps [0], mostly from ads. An 8-year-old is no match for a team of PhDs. Given the chance, most children would spend every waking minute using an iPad or phone. The more hours children spend playing games and watching videos, the fewer hours they spend reading books, building things, exercising creativity, making music, dancing, riding bikes, playing with friends, spending time with family members, learning how to cook, paying attention to people around them and learning from them. Instead, they're staring at the screen and consuming whatever was picked by the algorithms, which is usually worthless.
Manipulative software has large negative impacts on individuals and society. As a society, we do not yet know the diversity and severity of its effects. Many people do not even realize that software manipulates. The problem will only get worse until one of two things happen:
A) People begin to understand the effects of manipulation by software and develop habits and social mores to reduce harm. This will likely take generations. We can recognize this happening when derogatory terms for app abusers appear, like the terms for drug abusers.
For an analogy, consider the introduction of sugary drinks to indigenous communities in Mexico [1].
B) Society begins to hold companies accountable for manipulation they do via software and hold guardians responsible for exposing children to manipulative software. The proposed California law is the start of this process.
[0] https://www.blog.udonis.co/mobile-marketing/mobile-games/mob...
[1] https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/the-soft-drink-invasi...
The games developed and got more habit-forming, and I spent more and more time on them. I played Counter-Strike online for thousands of hours. Most of those hours were not enjoyable. I lost 6 months of my life to EverQuest, an MMORPG. Never again. Many of my classmates in university played World of Warcraft for 3+ hours every day. Some played it instead of studying and failed out of university.
Now, habit-forming features are integrated into all kinds of software, including apps for children. Puzzle games earn more money than traditional gambling apps [0], mostly from ads. An 8-year-old is no match for a team of PhDs. Given the chance, most children would spend every waking minute using an iPad or phone. The more hours children spend playing games and watching videos, the fewer hours they spend reading books, building things, exercising creativity, making music, dancing, riding bikes, playing with friends, spending time with family members, learning how to cook, paying attention to people around them and learning from them. Instead, they're staring at the screen and consuming whatever was picked by the algorithms, which is usually worthless.
Manipulative software has large negative impacts on individuals and society. As a society, we do not yet know the diversity and severity of its effects. Many people do not even realize that software manipulates. The problem will only get worse until one of two things happen:
A) People begin to understand the effects of manipulation by software and develop habits and social mores to reduce harm. This will likely take generations. We can recognize this happening when derogatory terms for app abusers appear, like the terms for drug abusers.
For an analogy, consider the introduction of sugary drinks to indigenous communities in Mexico [1].
B) Society begins to hold companies accountable for manipulation they do via software and hold guardians responsible for exposing children to manipulative software. The proposed California law is the start of this process.
[0] https://www.blog.udonis.co/mobile-marketing/mobile-games/mob...
[1] https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/the-soft-drink-invasi...
I am partial to your argument, but wish to mitigate it a bit.
> The games had violent content, but they didn't make me violent.
I think these games came in the lines of the war movies a lot of us grew up with, and they took the war/army propaganda aspects and ran with it. The “make people violent” bits were I think partly wish-making on the army side (needs a flattering image) and fear mongering on the puritanism side (needs something to blame)
To your point, “A” started happening, people are now reacting to the desensitization of violence on screen, in books and anywhere really, games or not. I think “A” is also already happening for mobile games that have gambling structures and attention traps.
“B” is the part that takes more time I think. On the violence example, society partly benefited from having people desensitized from violence and I’m not sure we’re seeing significant progress on that part. The same way mobile game companies and social networks are a huge engine of our economies, and having any decent regulation on that will take way more time I think than the cultural shift on “A”.
Just looking at Apple making most of its revenue from in-app purchases, yet enjoying an incredibly high social position is telling I think.
> The games had violent content, but they didn't make me violent.
I think these games came in the lines of the war movies a lot of us grew up with, and they took the war/army propaganda aspects and ran with it. The “make people violent” bits were I think partly wish-making on the army side (needs a flattering image) and fear mongering on the puritanism side (needs something to blame)
To your point, “A” started happening, people are now reacting to the desensitization of violence on screen, in books and anywhere really, games or not. I think “A” is also already happening for mobile games that have gambling structures and attention traps.
“B” is the part that takes more time I think. On the violence example, society partly benefited from having people desensitized from violence and I’m not sure we’re seeing significant progress on that part. The same way mobile game companies and social networks are a huge engine of our economies, and having any decent regulation on that will take way more time I think than the cultural shift on “A”.
Just looking at Apple making most of its revenue from in-app purchases, yet enjoying an incredibly high social position is telling I think.
Well, I'd say the main analogy would be casinos.
I think it took <<centuries>> to properly legislate them.
Hopefully for software we figure this stuff out in at most a few more decades.
I think it took <<centuries>> to properly legislate them.
Hopefully for software we figure this stuff out in at most a few more decades.
I believe A) is already happening, so the need for B) is decreasing. I hate social media personally, but I don't want it sued to oblivion anymore than I want WOW to be (Also hate MMOs). Just like WOW, I find it best to crash and burn on its own (lack of) merits
California has famously bad positions on anything related to morality but this is great. The ghouls that run social media companies know their product is addictive. They know what it does to people and also to kids. Anything that hurts them helps us.
>California has famously bad positions on anything related to morality but this is great.
I disagree, this is diverting the social responsibility back to the mailmen. This won't solve any of the underlying issues that cause these problems.
It's just the modern form of bathroom walls. The issues won't change, just the medium. I guess for the highly anti-coporaate who just want to see trillionaires stuck to it, it's exhilarating. But the things about many of these "think of the children" bills is that children are rarely the subject of the bill.
IMO this is peak sweeping under the rug of the psychological and sociological problems the modern youth face. But that's hard to solve. pointing fingers is easy.
I disagree, this is diverting the social responsibility back to the mailmen. This won't solve any of the underlying issues that cause these problems.
It's just the modern form of bathroom walls. The issues won't change, just the medium. I guess for the highly anti-coporaate who just want to see trillionaires stuck to it, it's exhilarating. But the things about many of these "think of the children" bills is that children are rarely the subject of the bill.
IMO this is peak sweeping under the rug of the psychological and sociological problems the modern youth face. But that's hard to solve. pointing fingers is easy.
Terrible. Your kids and their habits are your responsibility as a parent. This is the stuff that makes California look bad.
You kids and their habits are largely out of your control. Between kids' media, other kids, religious indoctrination, and the majority of their time spent in school, the influence a parent has is fleeting, continually undermined, and an entire career onto itself if one is serious about raising their children and not simply letting it happen, with sporadic attention, as most do.
You're not the ONLY influence, but you are AN influence. And arguably the primary one. At some point you gotta stop blaming the billboard you pass by everyday and actually parent. Which is about guiding, not bounding your kids.
your fear as a parent shouldnt be them watching some raunchy YT video and falling into the wrong crowd. By that point you should trust your kid enough to know that that raunchy video isn't reality and to focus on what really matters. If your kid isnt at that point, well: you gotta do more guiding.
Don't' just give up and blame society. Get them the help they need if you can't provide it
your fear as a parent shouldnt be them watching some raunchy YT video and falling into the wrong crowd. By that point you should trust your kid enough to know that that raunchy video isn't reality and to focus on what really matters. If your kid isnt at that point, well: you gotta do more guiding.
Don't' just give up and blame society. Get them the help they need if you can't provide it
I wonder how these laws would play out against a decentralized protocol instead of a centralized company.
> California bill would let parents blame other people for them not doing their job
> addicting kids
Is this grammatically correct?
It sounds very strange to my (British) ears.
I would write "[...] for making kids addicted to their products" or similar.
But then "x is very addicting" still bothers me. There's already a perfectly good and distinct word "addictive" so why make "addicting" serve a dual purpose?
Is this grammatically correct?
It sounds very strange to my (British) ears.
I would write "[...] for making kids addicted to their products" or similar.
But then "x is very addicting" still bothers me. There's already a perfectly good and distinct word "addictive" so why make "addicting" serve a dual purpose?
I’m still stunned that so many techies of the generation that grew up in the Wild West era of early internet freedom are now quick to applaud silly legislation to let parents sue social media companies for vaguely defined offenses.
Back when I was younger, the internet evilness was chat rooms and video games, both of which were supposedly addicting us and corrupting our young, helpless minds. We all knew it was ridiculous and mocked the “think of the children” attacks. We also turned out fine.
Then a couple decades pass and many of the same people are in full on “think of the children” mode over the latest generation of internet social interactions. I know commenters will claim it’s different this time, but I think the real difference is that people are getting older and out of touch. I’m guessing most of the anti-social media crusaders on HN don’t even use social media sites like Facebook and Instagram, but instead get their opinions from exaggerated news stories, just as our parents did back when the internet was new.
Does anyone here really think there is an “addictiveness” feature in the Facebook algorithm that can be toggled on and off like this article suggests? Does anyone think kids will just shrug and accept whatever limitations are imposed on them, or will they find creative ways to get a second account and set the age to 18 like we found creative ways around primitive internet content blockers? It’s the same stuff all over again and I think it’s getting quite hypocritical to pretend that heavy-handed internet controls were bad for us but good for them.
Amazing how it comes full circle.
Back when I was younger, the internet evilness was chat rooms and video games, both of which were supposedly addicting us and corrupting our young, helpless minds. We all knew it was ridiculous and mocked the “think of the children” attacks. We also turned out fine.
Then a couple decades pass and many of the same people are in full on “think of the children” mode over the latest generation of internet social interactions. I know commenters will claim it’s different this time, but I think the real difference is that people are getting older and out of touch. I’m guessing most of the anti-social media crusaders on HN don’t even use social media sites like Facebook and Instagram, but instead get their opinions from exaggerated news stories, just as our parents did back when the internet was new.
Does anyone here really think there is an “addictiveness” feature in the Facebook algorithm that can be toggled on and off like this article suggests? Does anyone think kids will just shrug and accept whatever limitations are imposed on them, or will they find creative ways to get a second account and set the age to 18 like we found creative ways around primitive internet content blockers? It’s the same stuff all over again and I think it’s getting quite hypocritical to pretend that heavy-handed internet controls were bad for us but good for them.
Amazing how it comes full circle.
I think there’s a story here that no one has talked about. It’s that the “traditional” media has fought back against social media by attacking them ruthlessly and getting everyone to believe their some great blight on the world.
Facebook et al are not doing anything traditional media hasn’t been doing since its inception. Spreading fake news? The original name for it was “Yellow Journalism”[1]. Making teenage girls insecure about themselves? Just look at magazines like Cosmopolitan from just a few years ago. Highlighting divisive, polarizing stories to drive engagement? Cable news doesn’t do anything else. Let’s not forget all the crazy racist, and seriously impactful shit local news has done over the years.
Social media and the internet stole a lot of eyeballs from traditional media outlets. They’ve successfully responded by convincing everyone that Facebook and the rest of big tech is some crazy super villain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Facebook et al are not doing anything traditional media hasn’t been doing since its inception. Spreading fake news? The original name for it was “Yellow Journalism”[1]. Making teenage girls insecure about themselves? Just look at magazines like Cosmopolitan from just a few years ago. Highlighting divisive, polarizing stories to drive engagement? Cable news doesn’t do anything else. Let’s not forget all the crazy racist, and seriously impactful shit local news has done over the years.
Social media and the internet stole a lot of eyeballs from traditional media outlets. They’ve successfully responded by convincing everyone that Facebook and the rest of big tech is some crazy super villain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Journalists love to talk about the danish study that paid people to quit Facebook and found that they were measurably happier. They conveniently ignore that the other measurable change was that people were less informed about current events/consumed less news. Which is a pretty unsurprising finding - the thing that people argue most about on social media is the very news/opinion clickbait that journalists produce.
Put it another way, if peopled replaced time spent on social media with time spent reading NYT/FOX/CNBC/CNN, would they become more or less upset and polarized? My money would be on more...
Put it another way, if peopled replaced time spent on social media with time spent reading NYT/FOX/CNBC/CNN, would they become more or less upset and polarized? My money would be on more...
I wager less upset but more polarized. While filter bubble is a term coined in the social media age, these news stations make for some of the easiest ways to create them IRL. one person of "authority", with complete, uncontested control on how to frame the news, typically gathering like minds who want to listen to it.
At least comment sections challenging a news piece gives some avenue for the audience to consider other angles to the story. I may not agree with every comment here on how they interpret this bill, but it gives me a wider look on the issue than if I listened only to LATime's take on it.
At least comment sections challenging a news piece gives some avenue for the audience to consider other angles to the story. I may not agree with every comment here on how they interpret this bill, but it gives me a wider look on the issue than if I listened only to LATime's take on it.
Traditional media didn't take over human socialization. You could socialize without having "traditional media" watch over and control who you talk to and what you talk about.
TV can absolutely be evil, but you can choose to not watch TV and still be able to socialize with peers using the telephone or paper mail back in the day.
Nowadays, the "TV" (which now fits in your pocket) is also the primary way humans communicate, so you can't switch off the "TV" without also severely hampering your ability to communicate with other people.
Hell, a lot of small businesses don't even have websites anymore, it's all in some bullshit social-media platform.
TV can absolutely be evil, but you can choose to not watch TV and still be able to socialize with peers using the telephone or paper mail back in the day.
Nowadays, the "TV" (which now fits in your pocket) is also the primary way humans communicate, so you can't switch off the "TV" without also severely hampering your ability to communicate with other people.
Hell, a lot of small businesses don't even have websites anymore, it's all in some bullshit social-media platform.
> Facebook et al are not doing anything traditional media hasn’t been doing since its inception.
"Quantity has a quality all its own" (presumably by Stalin)
Traditional media was time and place bound. Its reach was maybe 10% (at most!) of that of social media. Social media is always on, always available.
That changes a lot of things.
"Quantity has a quality all its own" (presumably by Stalin)
Traditional media was time and place bound. Its reach was maybe 10% (at most!) of that of social media. Social media is always on, always available.
That changes a lot of things.
Traditional media was constrained to the TV, radio and newspapers. It didn't try to take over human communication. You could opt out entirely and still be able to participate in society just fine.
Social media is a cancer that spread to a lot of day-to-day necessities and keeps spreading - some businesses don't even have websites anymore.
Social media is a cancer that spread to a lot of day-to-day necessities and keeps spreading - some businesses don't even have websites anymore.
>some businesses don't even have websites anymore.
I think that opens a differnet discussion altogether. Yelp can be considered a "social media". It's a website where users provide content (in this case, reviews) with some various algorithms made to encourage businesses to play ball to get high visibility. but I doubt any of the proposals discussed here would affect Yelp. Kids sure as heck aren't concerned with ratings over businesses they often can't pay for.
So would it be bad if a company lacked a website and relied on Yelp, whose goal isn't the same as Instagram's?
I think that opens a differnet discussion altogether. Yelp can be considered a "social media". It's a website where users provide content (in this case, reviews) with some various algorithms made to encourage businesses to play ball to get high visibility. but I doubt any of the proposals discussed here would affect Yelp. Kids sure as heck aren't concerned with ratings over businesses they often can't pay for.
So would it be bad if a company lacked a website and relied on Yelp, whose goal isn't the same as Instagram's?
This is directly true. Facebook courted media corps in Davos, but wouldn’t agree to their demands, and so the media corps waged all out war.
So disingenuous.
So disingenuous.
I can see where you're coming from, but let's be real, those IRC and game chat rooms were far from well run or safe for minors, and made minimal to no effort to keep minors out. Most still don't.
And modern social media really is different in that it's deliberately designed to be addictive and basically prey on insecurities. (or just outright create new ones) They don't do much if anything in terms of not straight up enhancing bullying etc either.
Another difference is, unlike our parents, who simply didn't know much about the internet, and as a result had lots of unfounded fears, our generation are digital natives and very familiar with all the problems. We're just used to and desensitized to them.
With adults, that's one thing, but with minors, it's pretty inexcusable imo. It's not unreasonable to want to protect your children and adolescents from harm, whether from smoking or from social media.
And modern social media really is different in that it's deliberately designed to be addictive and basically prey on insecurities. (or just outright create new ones) They don't do much if anything in terms of not straight up enhancing bullying etc either.
Another difference is, unlike our parents, who simply didn't know much about the internet, and as a result had lots of unfounded fears, our generation are digital natives and very familiar with all the problems. We're just used to and desensitized to them.
With adults, that's one thing, but with minors, it's pretty inexcusable imo. It's not unreasonable to want to protect your children and adolescents from harm, whether from smoking or from social media.
I think the harms of social media are overblown and distorted. The infamous Facebook leaks were studies conducted with under 50 girls. Only 3% and 18% said Instagram made them feel "much worse" or "somewhat worse" respectively. 8% and 29% respectively said it made them feel "much better" or "somewhat better". The rest were neutral. My take reading the actual data [1][2] after reading media coverage is that was way overblown. The main negative feelings "body image", "FOMO", "social comparison" and so forth were definitely the main negative feelings affecting girls before social media, too - I can say that from firsthand experience.
I worry that social media is a red herring, distracting things that may really be contributing to stress and anxiety. Remember, social media isn't the only change society has and continues to experience. Things like, declining labor force participation, rising inequality, and more are likely more significant changes. Narrow example: 45% of teens reported that fear of climate change "negatively affected their daily life and functioning" [3].
1. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...
2. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...
3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955
I worry that social media is a red herring, distracting things that may really be contributing to stress and anxiety. Remember, social media isn't the only change society has and continues to experience. Things like, declining labor force participation, rising inequality, and more are likely more significant changes. Narrow example: 45% of teens reported that fear of climate change "negatively affected their daily life and functioning" [3].
1. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...
2. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...
3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955
I try to be evidence based but social media being harmful is one of those things I personally don't really need a lot of hard data and evidence to be convinced. At this point it just seems self evident to me. (and I don't just mean harmful for me personally - I think it's blatantly obvious is harms basically every individual and societies as a whole as well)
+ if you're worried about climate change, isn't social media the medium through which a huge part of all the nonsense denial gets spread and popularized? (same for COVID and any number of other things)
+ if you're worried about climate change, isn't social media the medium through which a huge part of all the nonsense denial gets spread and popularized? (same for COVID and any number of other things)
Social media is good and bad like everything else. I don’t think it’s self evident.
Climate change denial is spread on social media, but so is climate change activism. Propaganda is spread on social media by Russia, but it’s also used by Ukrainians to share their story easily with the world.
Good and bad.
Climate change denial is spread on social media, but so is climate change activism. Propaganda is spread on social media by Russia, but it’s also used by Ukrainians to share their story easily with the world.
Good and bad.
In broad strokes I agree, and I'm pretty sure social media is here to stay.
But I do very much think the current implementations are net-losses, probably primarily due to advertising having horrifically perverse incentives for human behavior. And they are all advertising platforms first and foremost at the moment.
Easier communication brings out a lot of higher highs and lower lows, I think that's unavoidable. But I do think it can be substantially better than it is now.
But I do very much think the current implementations are net-losses, probably primarily due to advertising having horrifically perverse incentives for human behavior. And they are all advertising platforms first and foremost at the moment.
Easier communication brings out a lot of higher highs and lower lows, I think that's unavoidable. But I do think it can be substantially better than it is now.
> primarily due to advertising having horrifically perverse incentives for human behavior. And they are all advertising platforms first and foremost at the moment.
no different from the rest of society as we know it today. Games now include ads, paid streaming platforms are STILL having ads for customers (needing to pay extra to opt-out), TV has commercials, real life has anything you can paint on, etc.
But most of us learn to filter out the ads. I don't see them as the biggest problem here so much as a lack of moderation.
no different from the rest of society as we know it today. Games now include ads, paid streaming platforms are STILL having ads for customers (needing to pay extra to opt-out), TV has commercials, real life has anything you can paint on, etc.
But most of us learn to filter out the ads. I don't see them as the biggest problem here so much as a lack of moderation.
>social media being harmful is one of those things I personally don't really need a lot of hard data and evidence to be convinced.
I do. This same stance has been made for every media at some point in history. I feel in every case it's simply a smokescreen to hide deeper symptoms that no one wants to consider acknowledging, let alone treating.
> if you're worried about climate change, isn't social media the medium through which a huge part of all the nonsense denial gets spread and popularized?
it's a double edged sword. It's also why many youth may find out about climate change to begin with. cutting off all access simply creates ignorance instead of at the bare minimum awareness of the arguments being made. Maybe instead of blaming Facebook for the loonies not being listened to (if you're worried about climate change, the loonies clearly failed) we actually take actino to start preserving the envionment? But no, that takes actual congress bills to agree on.
I do. This same stance has been made for every media at some point in history. I feel in every case it's simply a smokescreen to hide deeper symptoms that no one wants to consider acknowledging, let alone treating.
> if you're worried about climate change, isn't social media the medium through which a huge part of all the nonsense denial gets spread and popularized?
it's a double edged sword. It's also why many youth may find out about climate change to begin with. cutting off all access simply creates ignorance instead of at the bare minimum awareness of the arguments being made. Maybe instead of blaming Facebook for the loonies not being listened to (if you're worried about climate change, the loonies clearly failed) we actually take actino to start preserving the envionment? But no, that takes actual congress bills to agree on.
> The main negative feelings "body image", "FOMO", "social comparison" and so forth were definitely the main negative feelings affecting girls before social media, too - I can say that from firsthand experience.
The difference is the impact and ubiquity.
Those negative you mention are now on steroids, because they're <<everywhere>> <<all the time>>.
The difference is the impact and ubiquity.
Those negative you mention are now on steroids, because they're <<everywhere>> <<all the time>>.
> I can see where you're coming from, but let's be real, those IRC and game chat rooms were far from well run or safe for minors, and made no to minimal efforts to keep minors out. Most still don't.
I wouldn't be here if not for those!
I grew up in a conservative town with little exposure to outside ideas and my parents were overly protective. The early internet sans filters and "filter bubble" algorithms gave me much needed perspective on the world.
IRC and forums were fundamentally a part of shaping who I am today.
I wouldn't be here if not for those!
I grew up in a conservative town with little exposure to outside ideas and my parents were overly protective. The early internet sans filters and "filter bubble" algorithms gave me much needed perspective on the world.
IRC and forums were fundamentally a part of shaping who I am today.
>Does anyone here really think there is an “addictiveness” feature in the Facebook algorithm that can be toggled on and off like this article suggests?
I mean, kinda. That's pretty much the whole purpose of their current algorithmically-ranked feed - maximize engagement (which is most-maximized by addiction).
I mean, kinda. That's pretty much the whole purpose of their current algorithmically-ranked feed - maximize engagement (which is most-maximized by addiction).
There is a massive difference social media today is run by the largest corporations that exist and design in a way that it is the most addictive possible.
I would argue it is similar to alcohol or tabacco this way. Shouting think of the children because some kids/teenagers get drunk at some point is way overkill. However once the tabacco/alcohol industry started directly marketing to them it was quite a different matter.
I would argue it is similar to alcohol or tabacco this way. Shouting think of the children because some kids/teenagers get drunk at some point is way overkill. However once the tabacco/alcohol industry started directly marketing to them it was quite a different matter.
> grew up in the Wild West era of early internet freedom
The Wild West era of Internet freedom was much more tame than that.
Sure, you had trolls and other nasties, but not only were those trolls for the most part doing their mischief for personal entertainment, their impact was relatively localized - their trolling didn't scale.
Now compare this to an industrial-scale trolling & spamming operation where billions are poured into research, development and infrastructure.
You're comparing a small-scale spammer using their email client to spam manually against an industrial-scale automated spamming operation. The first one can be dealt with locally, the second one might require some out-of-band intervention.
Also, back in the day, you didn't need to go into IRC or the dark corners on the Internet to participate in society day to day. Nowadays, you have to be in the social media cesspool to even be able to lookup some business' opening hours or contact them.
> Does anyone here really think there is an “addictiveness” feature in the Facebook algorithm that can be toggled on and off like this article suggests?
Yes - just give the user a chronological feed with no extra bullshit inserted into it and let the user choose what they want to see based on their follows, instead of the engagement-maximizing algorithm choosing for them.
The Wild West era of Internet freedom was much more tame than that.
Sure, you had trolls and other nasties, but not only were those trolls for the most part doing their mischief for personal entertainment, their impact was relatively localized - their trolling didn't scale.
Now compare this to an industrial-scale trolling & spamming operation where billions are poured into research, development and infrastructure.
You're comparing a small-scale spammer using their email client to spam manually against an industrial-scale automated spamming operation. The first one can be dealt with locally, the second one might require some out-of-band intervention.
Also, back in the day, you didn't need to go into IRC or the dark corners on the Internet to participate in society day to day. Nowadays, you have to be in the social media cesspool to even be able to lookup some business' opening hours or contact them.
> Does anyone here really think there is an “addictiveness” feature in the Facebook algorithm that can be toggled on and off like this article suggests?
Yes - just give the user a chronological feed with no extra bullshit inserted into it and let the user choose what they want to see based on their follows, instead of the engagement-maximizing algorithm choosing for them.
Nothing is more exaggerated news than social media.
Except social media about news about social media.
Is there any reason to believe that the people who came up with this legislation grew up using IRC and forums? Are you sure they wouldn't have been consistent with their 'protect the children' stance 25 years ago, against something like AOL?
Unless the users of HN collectively wrote the bill I'm failing to see where the hypocrisy is lol
Unless the users of HN collectively wrote the bill I'm failing to see where the hypocrisy is lol
> the people who came up with this legislation grew up using IRC and forums
IIRC the average age of a congressman is the mid 50's, and the senate the early 60's. That would be right before their time.
I think that user was more talking about the audience here at HN agreeing with it. "we" won't be in congress for another 20 years on average (given current congress age).
IIRC the average age of a congressman is the mid 50's, and the senate the early 60's. That would be right before their time.
I think that user was more talking about the audience here at HN agreeing with it. "we" won't be in congress for another 20 years on average (given current congress age).
I'm shocked that so many foodies of the Wild West era of culinary freedom are now quick to applaud legislation to restrict the ingestion of opioids.
It's more like restricting McDonalds. Which yes, was and still is a hotly debated topic.
I think its extremely hyperbolic to compare FB to morphine. Social media addiction isn't something that is commonly worried about on a clinical level (in a day and age where "video game addiction" is officially recognized).
I think its extremely hyperbolic to compare FB to morphine. Social media addiction isn't something that is commonly worried about on a clinical level (in a day and age where "video game addiction" is officially recognized).
It took decades since its introduction for doctors to recognize morphine was dangerously addictive, so the fact that social media isn't currently something commonly worried about on a clinical level doesn't really say much.
And we've known for centuries that eating a lotta food makes you fat. There's an entire clinical wing of physical and mental health illnesses dedicated to highlighting the ramifications of being overweight. Alcoholism was similar, but at least justified centuries back in the times where it was still safer to consume than most forms of water.
Maybe some breaking study brings something up, but it's still a long debate after that to determine how and if society should control those activities. Even with alcohol, it's not illegal for a minor to drink, it's illegal for vendors to sell to them.
Maybe some breaking study brings something up, but it's still a long debate after that to determine how and if society should control those activities. Even with alcohol, it's not illegal for a minor to drink, it's illegal for vendors to sell to them.
> Wild West era
That's the difference. It was Wild West, now it's a capitalist monster with questionable intentions.
That's the difference. It was Wild West, now it's a capitalist monster with questionable intentions.
I would absolutely rather my kid be addicted to reddit 10 years ago than reddit today, for example. MySpace over Twitter, for another.
[deleted](1)
Good. This won't be well received here because many that read HN are either just working in social media companies or directly on the teams responsible for addicting children. They don't like the idea that what they're doing is destroying the minds of a generation (and a half, at this point).
Looking at the generation you're describing, they are more informed and more tolerant than many in the generation that came before. Although they do have quite a bit of anxiety... Perhaps justified, since their informed position means that they have a hard time ignoring the looming disasters the generations before them primed, most of whom will die off before the dominoes fall.
If this is destruction, it's the most creative of destruction.
If this is destruction, it's the most creative of destruction.
[deleted]
Same stupid shit happening here in the UK.