If social media means FB, TikTok, Instagram then I'm all for it. Don't start smoking until you are an adult, and by then, perhaps you'll have a bit of reason.
Probably going to illicit some bad responses, but hopefully here, people might see what I am trying to say.
While I am annoyed a "ban" has to come into play for social media, it seems to be the only thing we can do in the short term, but as a person in the IT industry, I do wonder if we are missing doing an RCA on the issue.
Even as an adult with a child, I can't see us ever letting our kid actually use social media till they understand it, and that comes down to parenting properly, teaching them the right way, and letting them know of the dangers.
However, I see the root cause as these are commercial platforms which enable the person with more money to throw their version of events at all of us, not just kids and adults. I can see that it isn't just the kids we have to worry about, but we have adults in high places who will believe the same thing, and while we worry about the children in this, there are adults who could do serious damage to themselves and others, and people would look the other way.
These days, people need to have different ways to talk to each other. Yes, I know we used to have letters, then telegrams, then everything evolves, but live changes, and information is so much more freely available. Locking people out of good information means that you are essentially stopping them from seeing the wider picture. Moving closer to sensorship.
For me, its frustrating that this the direction we are going in, but it doesn't actually solve the issue. It just passes it along to later on, further time away, for it to then cause more damage later on. How many times have we as IT people left something and had to then deal with the issues later on.
Social media is just that, it isn't good. I try to stay away from it, but in a way it is the only way I do get updates on what happens to my friends, globally. The world is changing, and we need to adapt, but we need to put the right guardrails in the right place.
Personally, I think the blanket ban is not the right thing to do, but in the short term, we have ended up being the only option we can do, and that isn't good. That is why for me, a ban isn't good. It isn't because I don't think it will help, I just believe it doesn't solve the problem itself.
100% agreed that at least short term, we should ban it for children.
But beyond..? If we believe in freedom of speech, what's the angle? How is it different from an awful tabloid pushing its own warped reality on us? Colorful "newspapers" with topless models and stories about a stoned postman were also ragebait and dopamine hacking, only offline. I don't like them, but then some time around 18th century we concluded we let almost everyone say almost anything, to make sure no tyrant can shut down ideas singlehandedly.
IMHO the fundamental issue is a failure of education. We're in a position where people (adults) are literally too stupid to tell how bad, deceitful and dangerous this stuff can be. We should teach people properly, then let them read whatever.
Banning cigarettes is one thing, banning (awful but bon-criminal) free speech feels off.
I do agree that any ban is of limited future utility if kids go from a safe kiddie pool into deep waters that are lethal for a majority of the population.
Still, dismissing a ban is throwing the baby out with the bath water. (I couldn't help myself with the water analogies. Sorry)
Free speech is the cornerstone of our ability to debate and understand the shape of reality. It remains the best way forward. The issue is that the modern attacks on the market place of ideas are designed to circumvent our intuitions and safeguards.
Today control is achieved by overwhelming the network and users. An Abundance of privately generated content instead of central regulation and restriction of content.
However the threat is the same- reducing the ability for humans to engage in fair debate.
If you want a better environment for kids to be able to transition to, we need to triage.
1) Ensure an even playing field. This means regulation, which by nature will be censorial, as well as the creation of independently funded news and information bodies.
2) Transparency and Data from tech firms. When we find out a substance is harmful, and have the data to prove it, we make rules to mitigate those harms.
3) Valuing informational health and hygene. Junk food used to be dominant globally, and today we joke about avocado toast and the latest health food fad. People shifted consumption habits when costs and benefits were made clear.
What is it about this 16 y/o cutoff that seems to be the focus everywhere? Why not 18?
It almost seems like this will make SM attractive by making it a kind of forbidden fruit and/or a social standing status indicator for impressionable, malleable minded, underdeveloped minds of teens seeking to feel like adults.
In other words, if I didn’t know any better, I would have guessed that it might actually be the likes of Facebook pushing these controls internationally (not the least because they seem so coordinated all across the planet) in order to manipulate target users into coveting having a fb/SM account again.
Tell me you think Facebook, the same Facebook that was caught running uncontrolled and illegal psychological manipulation testing on its users, would not do such a thing!
Doing their level best to piss off the entire electorate with additional bureaucracy. Makes zero sense unless they’re actually trying to lose the next election.
I opened Snapchat for 5 mins in Australia (on a trip there) and now it’s demanding I prove my age.
Social media bans only exist for governments to strangle the anonymous internet. Politicians are very sensitive to online criticism. A German politician tried to have a commentor arrested for for saying they were fat.
All of this would be easier if we just called Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all the others by a more correct name: “Sales-acceleration platforms” and it's mode of operation is "inducing emotional instability in consumers".
“Sales-acceleration platforms” should be regulated to protect consumers, no? Also, why do children need to be on “Sales-acceleration platforms”?
> It would also look at whether more robust age checks could be implemented by social media firms, which could be forced to remove or limit features "which drive compulsive use of social media".
Why not some version of this from social media companies?
Revert the service back to the early days for under-16 (or whatever) accounts where they connect with friends and only see post from them in chronological order without all the other outside content injection. A very pared down limited feature version so the kids still have online interaction minus the content up for debate on its harmfulness. And if the companies did it on their own they could use that to look like they care; be the "good guys". The risk is everyone else wanting the same -- better, imo -- experience. In which they tell the adults to kick rocks and everyone gets on with life.
I'm fairly agnostic to the headline question of whether social media should be banned for under 16s. The part that seems interesting to me is whether this will entail linking online activity to real world identity for the rest of us. It doesn't have to, but in practice I guess that's probably what'll happen. Unfortunately all the debate is "but freedom of speech" vs "but think of the kids" vs, and nobody will be lobbying for a better (or less worse) implementation.
This is sure to be a very constructive thread, but let me sum up the dissonance and solution I think will work.
IT people are rightly afraid this will be used to create Draconian requirements.
Parents are rightly afraid social media is having extreme negative effects on children (and society).
Banning social media for 16 is the right way to go, and enforcement should be put on the parents / schools. Not the tech platforms beyond a cursory glance.
The goal should be to get >80% of kids off social media + a campaign to clarify the other 20% is a bunch of addicted losers getting played by an algorithm.
That's it. By making it the law you make it the norm. Dutch School policies banning phones have been overwhelmingly successful when you ask children and parents. They like having lunch breaks again where nobody is on their phone.
Delusions about perfect 100% coverage by some technical solution that boils down to mass surveillance / authorized users is just idiots saying idiot things.
Given that, according to the ban proponents own words, social media algorithms are addictive as hell and impossible to resist, what do they think it will happen to those children after 16?
Do you really believe that they will magically be "immune"? Even adults are addicted to social media, and it didn't even exist back when they were teens.
It should be that when you sign up with an ISP AND have children, you should be required by law to install software to monitor and track your children's usage. It needs to be done at this level, as this then stops the Proxy, VPN argument as well.
This is both a technical and an educational problem that needs to be solved. The technology for network monitoring needs to be easier for parents to install, with all 18+ content blocked by default, etc. Companies have software installed that tracks everything you do—every piece of software you install (or can't install if the system is locked down). We need this level of technology available at home.
Now, if Microsoft, Google, etc all got together, backed by the government, they could build this in months, and so the cost would be low and shared.
All mobile phone contracts block access to 18+ content. If a child has a mobile phone, then yes, block access to social networks.
It could be a plug-in device that connects between your router OR an ISP-level feature that, when you first join, asks whether there are children in the house. If you say no and there are, then that's breaking the law.
When you first install it, a well-designed interface would prompt you to select your children's ages and add their devices (laptops, iPads, etc.). You install the client software locally, link everything up, and the whole system tracks and monitors usage. Problem solved.
If children go to friends' houses, there should be a way for them to join as guests so parents can still see everything.
If children go to grandparents' houses or friends of friends, then either you need to install this box to manage access, or there's no Wi-Fi. They'd have to use their mobile data.
What I don't agree with is that childless people have to comply. I don't know any children, and all the ones I did have have grown up now. Fundamentally, I do think that we need to find a better way to stop social media bullying, the fact that beheading or gore videos are so easily accessible - I think that's worse than any "normal" porn!
Children cannot drink or smoke. It's not like you can argue against this; parents have a responsibility to stop that from happening. It's no different; in fact, it's worse.
Now, of course, once kids get to 14+, they will find a way. Since the start of history, we've all gone through that, and nothing any government does is going to stop children from pushing boundaries, learning, and experimenting.
My concern is that Gov will go down a route where every website you sign up to requires AgeID. It will be impossible to have Anon accounts anywhere. Sites will love it as more advertising and tracking for everyone. I stopped posting on social networks, as the second you say anything slightly different from someone else, the trolls come out and attack. I simply could not be bothered, and so deleted all social networks.
Waiting now for the HN trolls to attack - don't worry, I simply cannot be bothered to respond :)
I think this will be bad for the cybersecurity industry. I cut my teeth by hanging around on IRC networks back in the day. That said, I doubt these will end up being regulated due to their popularity and antiquity.
24 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 54.5 ms ] threadWhile I am annoyed a "ban" has to come into play for social media, it seems to be the only thing we can do in the short term, but as a person in the IT industry, I do wonder if we are missing doing an RCA on the issue.
Even as an adult with a child, I can't see us ever letting our kid actually use social media till they understand it, and that comes down to parenting properly, teaching them the right way, and letting them know of the dangers.
However, I see the root cause as these are commercial platforms which enable the person with more money to throw their version of events at all of us, not just kids and adults. I can see that it isn't just the kids we have to worry about, but we have adults in high places who will believe the same thing, and while we worry about the children in this, there are adults who could do serious damage to themselves and others, and people would look the other way.
These days, people need to have different ways to talk to each other. Yes, I know we used to have letters, then telegrams, then everything evolves, but live changes, and information is so much more freely available. Locking people out of good information means that you are essentially stopping them from seeing the wider picture. Moving closer to sensorship.
For me, its frustrating that this the direction we are going in, but it doesn't actually solve the issue. It just passes it along to later on, further time away, for it to then cause more damage later on. How many times have we as IT people left something and had to then deal with the issues later on.
Social media is just that, it isn't good. I try to stay away from it, but in a way it is the only way I do get updates on what happens to my friends, globally. The world is changing, and we need to adapt, but we need to put the right guardrails in the right place.
Personally, I think the blanket ban is not the right thing to do, but in the short term, we have ended up being the only option we can do, and that isn't good. That is why for me, a ban isn't good. It isn't because I don't think it will help, I just believe it doesn't solve the problem itself.
But beyond..? If we believe in freedom of speech, what's the angle? How is it different from an awful tabloid pushing its own warped reality on us? Colorful "newspapers" with topless models and stories about a stoned postman were also ragebait and dopamine hacking, only offline. I don't like them, but then some time around 18th century we concluded we let almost everyone say almost anything, to make sure no tyrant can shut down ideas singlehandedly.
IMHO the fundamental issue is a failure of education. We're in a position where people (adults) are literally too stupid to tell how bad, deceitful and dangerous this stuff can be. We should teach people properly, then let them read whatever.
Banning cigarettes is one thing, banning (awful but bon-criminal) free speech feels off.
Still, dismissing a ban is throwing the baby out with the bath water. (I couldn't help myself with the water analogies. Sorry)
Free speech is the cornerstone of our ability to debate and understand the shape of reality. It remains the best way forward. The issue is that the modern attacks on the market place of ideas are designed to circumvent our intuitions and safeguards.
Today control is achieved by overwhelming the network and users. An Abundance of privately generated content instead of central regulation and restriction of content.
However the threat is the same- reducing the ability for humans to engage in fair debate.
If you want a better environment for kids to be able to transition to, we need to triage.
1) Ensure an even playing field. This means regulation, which by nature will be censorial, as well as the creation of independently funded news and information bodies.
2) Transparency and Data from tech firms. When we find out a substance is harmful, and have the data to prove it, we make rules to mitigate those harms.
3) Valuing informational health and hygene. Junk food used to be dominant globally, and today we joke about avocado toast and the latest health food fad. People shifted consumption habits when costs and benefits were made clear.
It almost seems like this will make SM attractive by making it a kind of forbidden fruit and/or a social standing status indicator for impressionable, malleable minded, underdeveloped minds of teens seeking to feel like adults.
In other words, if I didn’t know any better, I would have guessed that it might actually be the likes of Facebook pushing these controls internationally (not the least because they seem so coordinated all across the planet) in order to manipulate target users into coveting having a fb/SM account again.
Tell me you think Facebook, the same Facebook that was caught running uncontrolled and illegal psychological manipulation testing on its users, would not do such a thing!
I opened Snapchat for 5 mins in Australia (on a trip there) and now it’s demanding I prove my age.
I don't think social media is a net positive for under 16s.
“Sales-acceleration platforms” should be regulated to protect consumers, no? Also, why do children need to be on “Sales-acceleration platforms”?
Why not some version of this from social media companies?
Revert the service back to the early days for under-16 (or whatever) accounts where they connect with friends and only see post from them in chronological order without all the other outside content injection. A very pared down limited feature version so the kids still have online interaction minus the content up for debate on its harmfulness. And if the companies did it on their own they could use that to look like they care; be the "good guys". The risk is everyone else wanting the same -- better, imo -- experience. In which they tell the adults to kick rocks and everyone gets on with life.
- Searchable history of all content that has been viewed on the app
- Age-based content/functionality restrictions, with sensible defaults
- SM account DOB set from device DOB, with no override
- Parental controls implemented consistently across all apps
- Free comprehensive public education programme for parents about using SM safety
Some of this already exists, but not widely and is rarely done well.
Ban social media for under-16s to protect children https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/710283
IT people are rightly afraid this will be used to create Draconian requirements. Parents are rightly afraid social media is having extreme negative effects on children (and society).
Banning social media for 16 is the right way to go, and enforcement should be put on the parents / schools. Not the tech platforms beyond a cursory glance.
The goal should be to get >80% of kids off social media + a campaign to clarify the other 20% is a bunch of addicted losers getting played by an algorithm.
That's it. By making it the law you make it the norm. Dutch School policies banning phones have been overwhelmingly successful when you ask children and parents. They like having lunch breaks again where nobody is on their phone.
Delusions about perfect 100% coverage by some technical solution that boils down to mass surveillance / authorized users is just idiots saying idiot things.
Do you really believe that they will magically be "immune"? Even adults are addicted to social media, and it didn't even exist back when they were teens.
This is both a technical and an educational problem that needs to be solved. The technology for network monitoring needs to be easier for parents to install, with all 18+ content blocked by default, etc. Companies have software installed that tracks everything you do—every piece of software you install (or can't install if the system is locked down). We need this level of technology available at home.
Now, if Microsoft, Google, etc all got together, backed by the government, they could build this in months, and so the cost would be low and shared.
All mobile phone contracts block access to 18+ content. If a child has a mobile phone, then yes, block access to social networks.
It could be a plug-in device that connects between your router OR an ISP-level feature that, when you first join, asks whether there are children in the house. If you say no and there are, then that's breaking the law.
When you first install it, a well-designed interface would prompt you to select your children's ages and add their devices (laptops, iPads, etc.). You install the client software locally, link everything up, and the whole system tracks and monitors usage. Problem solved.
If children go to friends' houses, there should be a way for them to join as guests so parents can still see everything.
If children go to grandparents' houses or friends of friends, then either you need to install this box to manage access, or there's no Wi-Fi. They'd have to use their mobile data.
What I don't agree with is that childless people have to comply. I don't know any children, and all the ones I did have have grown up now. Fundamentally, I do think that we need to find a better way to stop social media bullying, the fact that beheading or gore videos are so easily accessible - I think that's worse than any "normal" porn!
Children cannot drink or smoke. It's not like you can argue against this; parents have a responsibility to stop that from happening. It's no different; in fact, it's worse.
Now, of course, once kids get to 14+, they will find a way. Since the start of history, we've all gone through that, and nothing any government does is going to stop children from pushing boundaries, learning, and experimenting.
My concern is that Gov will go down a route where every website you sign up to requires AgeID. It will be impossible to have Anon accounts anywhere. Sites will love it as more advertising and tracking for everyone. I stopped posting on social networks, as the second you say anything slightly different from someone else, the trolls come out and attack. I simply could not be bothered, and so deleted all social networks.
Waiting now for the HN trolls to attack - don't worry, I simply cannot be bothered to respond :)