Want to do something that protects a significant percentage of children? Ban social media for children.
Work out a zero knowledge way to verify age, and implement it. It won't be easy, but it also won't require breaking the rules of mathematics as per most of the governmental requests to 'safely' backdoor encryption.
"Think of the children!" No, think of the absentee parents rationalizing invading our privacy because of their laziness. All of this ID requirements bullshit is just about invasive, authoritarian control. Hell no!
I think this is spot on. It’s interesting how rhetoric about “liberty” seems to practically serve oligarchy. I suppose an alternative to bans and regulations is to genuinely pursue the elimination of deprivation, orient our collective capacities towards our collective well-being, and then let people do what they will. Anything short of that seems to be a rather false liberty (and a rather false democracy, while we’re at it).
> even though heroin harms and often kills those who consume it
I’m going to stop you right there. Basically the whole opioid epidemic is because herion is illegal. We’d have way fewer deaths if we’d provided safe and legal access to it. And also American companies would have the profits instead of terrorists and organized criminals.
How much does the author actually know about a heroin addiction? I mean, I don't have one, but I've talked to people that do, and a lot of the problems with heroin are because we made it illegal and hard to get. If we sold it for a dollar at every gas station we wouldn't have nearlythe same problems with it we do today. And besides no one sells heroin anymore, everyone has moved on to fentanyl.
Spot on. There was a lot of sensible stuff in the National Security Strategy document published recently, but the attack on Europe was shocking, even though it is in line with recent events. It is time for Europe to chart its own course and reduce dependence on America as it should on Russia.
In the US, it isn't just about social media being vicious. It is, more than that, how it became a plutocracy that controls the government and congress.
And is a plague that the rest of the world is just catching up to. It isn't just the European Union that wants to regulate it. India's government, Brazil's supreme court, Australia, ...
I which we could have a global wake-up. The world would be a better place without social media.
When we read about historical facts, I am always impressed by how entire societies do terrible things. I always thought it was ignorance or information censorship. Nowadays, I see intelligent people working for these big techs here on Hacker News. They are people I admire and who are very well-informed. I then realize how we are not free from the most terrible moments in history.
I vaguely remember the author is a Nobel Price in Economics so he is supposed to be a intellectual, very wise man paid to warn us of incoming problems and opportunities.
Beyond the clickbait title I am not gonna judge is analysis (he is probably right) but ask the question:
Where were those people 20 years ago? before Meta became a 1.68 trillion business and others became some of the largest companies by marketcap?
Because any room temperature IQ person already figured out a long time ago social media were addictive. No need for a Nobel price. Ironically this is why people get their information from anybody on social media, precisely because they figured out they are not getting any real insight from Paul Krugeman.
There were indeed early warning signs that Facebook was shady.
I remember being delighted with FB initially. It was a wonderful way to keep in touch with extended family and wayward friends.
But then I discovered how difficult it was to control my 'timeline/newsfeed' or whatever they called it. There was a small menu attached that allowed you to Sort By Latest or some such... but it wasn't sticky, and so you always had to select it, and it eventually disappeared completely and... you saw what they wanted you to see.
Originally FB would send you an email whenever someone sent you a message on Messenger, and the email contained the contents of the message, so you didn't even need to login to FB, and I enjoyed having that... But that too didn't last long. When they turned that feature off I realized they were all about themselves and their goal of user engagement, and the value-added (for me) dropped to zero.
Sometime after '15 I disengaged. I left the account alive but haven't been on but thrice in 10 years.
I campaigned for a while, within my family and circle of friends, trying to get them to rally around an alternative (I started by offering Slack, feebly) but I was unconvincing and unsuccessful.
I remember the horror of Thanksgiving 2016, as I stood in the living room of my niece's apartment, and pondered the array of five family members before me. Easy chair, couch x 3, easy chair... each of them engrossed by their phones. Nobody was talking, everybody was comfortable, there but also somewhere else.
Fighting wars (more than one, in fact) to force a country into permitting unrestricted sale of opioids has historical precedent of course. The victim then was China, which tried to enforce their laws on drugs ... to the dislike of English Businessmen with enough pocket money to buy the army.
I for one would prefer to buy wine in a Utah grocery store. Or maybe even just a NYC supermarket. Even if it's wine from Texas, though I know that really stretches the meaning of "wine". And I'd also like to carry the bottle publicly as least as proudly as someone can carry their gun.
(oh how easy it is to trigger libertarian impulses. I'm with Voltaire in that one, say what you want. I'll fight - alongside you for your right to do so, and against you when I disagree ...)
Banning social media for children is evidence free, nanny state, political virtue signaling that will be the thin end of the wedge that government use to deeply control and regulate and control adults.
100% true, as I type this on a social media platform :)
But at least this site does perform moderation and so far it has not been toxic like most others. Plus if someone disagrees with you, just about all of the time, that person comes across as respectful.
You only care because it's Trump. Before Musk took over Twitter, the US government was not only censoring American citizens by colluding with all of the major social media companies, but allowing foreign dictators to censor their own citizens abroad.
I'm really tired when the online community completely ignores atrocities because they don't ever want to make their own side look bad, but talk about the end of the world when it's someone they don't like.
- Let's limit children's use of social media and screens.
- Great! Let's do it.
- We need to identify who is 18+, so here's your digital ID for everything. And, from now on, if you ever criticize the government you will lose your bank account and your job.
- WTF!
- That "WTF" just cost you 100 social credits.
UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and next USA. It's amazing how coordinated it is. They are using dog-whistles like CSAM, immigration, crime, and now children's wellbeing.
It's so weird to see the leading heroin story phrased like a hypothetical, when:
1. Heroin itself was marketed as a "non-addictive morphine substitute", and sold to the public. It didn't become a controlled substance until 1914 (according to Wikipedia)
2. The opioid crisis was basically started and perpetuated by Purdue pharma, again marketing Oxycodone with the label “Delayed absorption as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.” and other more egregious advertising.
3. Britain went to war with China twice to force the Qing dynasty to allow them to sell opium there.
4. President Teddy Roosevelt's grandfather made a ton of money in the opium trade.
It's supposed to be sort of shocking hypothetical, except actually that's basically the history of the actual drug.
20 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 41.3 ms ] threadWork out a zero knowledge way to verify age, and implement it. It won't be easy, but it also won't require breaking the rules of mathematics as per most of the governmental requests to 'safely' backdoor encryption.
I’m going to stop you right there. Basically the whole opioid epidemic is because herion is illegal. We’d have way fewer deaths if we’d provided safe and legal access to it. And also American companies would have the profits instead of terrorists and organized criminals.
In the US, it isn't just about social media being vicious. It is, more than that, how it became a plutocracy that controls the government and congress.
And is a plague that the rest of the world is just catching up to. It isn't just the European Union that wants to regulate it. India's government, Brazil's supreme court, Australia, ...
I which we could have a global wake-up. The world would be a better place without social media.
Beyond the clickbait title I am not gonna judge is analysis (he is probably right) but ask the question:
Where were those people 20 years ago? before Meta became a 1.68 trillion business and others became some of the largest companies by marketcap?
Because any room temperature IQ person already figured out a long time ago social media were addictive. No need for a Nobel price. Ironically this is why people get their information from anybody on social media, precisely because they figured out they are not getting any real insight from Paul Krugeman.
I remember being delighted with FB initially. It was a wonderful way to keep in touch with extended family and wayward friends.
But then I discovered how difficult it was to control my 'timeline/newsfeed' or whatever they called it. There was a small menu attached that allowed you to Sort By Latest or some such... but it wasn't sticky, and so you always had to select it, and it eventually disappeared completely and... you saw what they wanted you to see.
Originally FB would send you an email whenever someone sent you a message on Messenger, and the email contained the contents of the message, so you didn't even need to login to FB, and I enjoyed having that... But that too didn't last long. When they turned that feature off I realized they were all about themselves and their goal of user engagement, and the value-added (for me) dropped to zero.
Sometime after '15 I disengaged. I left the account alive but haven't been on but thrice in 10 years.
I campaigned for a while, within my family and circle of friends, trying to get them to rally around an alternative (I started by offering Slack, feebly) but I was unconvincing and unsuccessful.
I remember the horror of Thanksgiving 2016, as I stood in the living room of my niece's apartment, and pondered the array of five family members before me. Easy chair, couch x 3, easy chair... each of them engrossed by their phones. Nobody was talking, everybody was comfortable, there but also somewhere else.
I for one would prefer to buy wine in a Utah grocery store. Or maybe even just a NYC supermarket. Even if it's wine from Texas, though I know that really stretches the meaning of "wine". And I'd also like to carry the bottle publicly as least as proudly as someone can carry their gun.
(oh how easy it is to trigger libertarian impulses. I'm with Voltaire in that one, say what you want. I'll fight - alongside you for your right to do so, and against you when I disagree ...)
“We’re protecting the children!”
Relevant Honest Government Ad: https://youtu.be/ZxRB5qWphJE?si=iT_3v1LyDvUu1UPL
The trick is to try to figure out if his current rant is brilliant or idiotic.
But at least this site does perform moderation and so far it has not been toxic like most others. Plus if someone disagrees with you, just about all of the time, that person comes across as respectful.
I'm really tired when the online community completely ignores atrocities because they don't ever want to make their own side look bad, but talk about the end of the world when it's someone they don't like.
1. Heroin itself was marketed as a "non-addictive morphine substitute", and sold to the public. It didn't become a controlled substance until 1914 (according to Wikipedia) 2. The opioid crisis was basically started and perpetuated by Purdue pharma, again marketing Oxycodone with the label “Delayed absorption as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.” and other more egregious advertising. 3. Britain went to war with China twice to force the Qing dynasty to allow them to sell opium there. 4. President Teddy Roosevelt's grandfather made a ton of money in the opium trade.
It's supposed to be sort of shocking hypothetical, except actually that's basically the history of the actual drug.