7 ms·
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but
by baggachipz 16d ago
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.
- SecretDreams 16d agoAgreed entirely. They're really glossing over the harm parts. The vibe in this article feels like someone who used the internet in the 90s and 2000s when community was actually a thing. Maybe even early Facebook days when it was college level and newly released to the general public. What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar companies seriously reform (which would hurt their bottom lines), I don't know what you'd do other than banning the product, much like what we did for cigarettes.
- jjulius 16d ago>They're really glossing over the harm parts. Yeah, it's weird - the first couple of paragraphs feel a lot like, "... but FOMO!" is their argument against it.
- bloppe 16d agoAre cigarettes banned?
- bigfudge 16d agoYes for kids. And highly regulated for everyone else (especially in Europe but also in the US)
- nhinck3 16d agoBan smart phones for kids.
- bluGill 16d agoMy kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.
- kyboren 16d agoWhy can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you. Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a condition for their child to receive an education. For an extra solid case, insist that you have a sincere, deeply-held conviction against the use of these devices and any attempt to force their use or deny your child the right to an education due to your refusal is a violation of the First Amendment. Why do parents just surrender and do whatever school admins want?
- bluGill 16d agoThese are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.
- ulrikrasmussen 16d agoBan targeted advertising
- baggachipz 16d agoI don't think that would solve the issue. The algorithms exist to keep users engaged and looking at ads; turning the ads from targeted to generic still wouldn't change the end goal of these companies. They want to keep people scrolling and feeling inadequate so that they see and click ads.
- fsflover 16d agoBan all advertising, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
- iamnothere 16d agoIt would put them out of business, or fundamentally change the business model to one where engagement is not the primary metric for users. These platforms are so profitable because of targeted advertising. And most of the harm of these platforms comes from privacy invasion (tied to advertising) and the need to juice engagement numbers by manipulating emotions (also tied to advertising). A subscription model would not have the same problems. There are serious first amendment concerns with attempting to regulate the presentation of websites and apps.
- akersten 16d ago> Clearly we can't do nothing, Why is that so clear? I can think of hundreds of real daily problems I'd rather my legislators be focused on than deciding how old my kids have to be before they're allowed on some website. I would like affordable groceries and public transport, not whatever this is. If they really want to "do something" then require an 18+ ID at a cell phone points of sale. That'll be something that won't affect me and actually will temper a ton of underage Internet use. Then they can study the actual effect of that and whether the harms were exaggerated after all. And, reminder, so no one here loses the plot: this is a backdoor feel good measure lobbied for by big tech to push us into a world with mandatory device attestation so their ad impressions are worth more. They could care less about your kids.
- kelseyfrog 16d agoNothing is not politically viable for the parents who want controls to limit their children's access. It's funny watching HN constantly berate parents for not parenting while parents' material conditions don't change. Same environment, same result, and frankly there's more of them and they're better organized. All it takes is parents to win once. You have to not lose every time.
- dgellow 16d agoWhat control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls
- roosterIllusi0n 16d agoTell the big for profit social media companies to require id and leave it at that. Why complicate things? Republicans had no problems forcing adult sites to require id. If the for profit crap all needs id verification, people have the chance to opt out by avoiding those services. Stop acting like we need to be "fair" to social media companies just so they can steal more of our data.
- dgellow 16d agoStudies I read on the topic don’t demonstrate harm, what are you relying upon? Hopefully not Haidt’s book
- zug_zug 16d agoWell, once a state passes a law we'll have plenty of data to actually conduct a meaningful measurement on the topic. We'll see how things change for these teens once the law goes into effect - do they report being happier? do they get better grades? etc.
- iamnothere 16d agoExactly, and let’s take away your internet access next and see if it improves the state of politics in this country. We’ll find out after the fact, but until then I’m sure you won’t mind.
- bigfudge 16d agoAll meaningful research on SM is highly gatekept by the industry. There is plenty of evidence from whistleblowers that internal assessments were that the services were causing harm.
- dgellow 16d agoPlenty of researchers study and publish on the topic of social media. You’re conflating internal processes/experiments where Meta was very likely damaging people with public research.
- cm2187 16d agoKeep the parents in control. The nanny state isn’t a substitute for good parenting.
- annoyingnoob 16d agoProducts designed to be addictive are not a parenting issue. This is a product liability issue with a product designed to drive engagement. Products should be safe to use. Parents cannot, and in some cases should not, prevent all harms. Learning to assess and deal with risk is part of growing up. No one wants a helicopter parent constantly trying to protect you from everything. You are calling for a nanny, just arguing about where it should be.
- cm2187 16d agoI don't think you should ban McDonald's because parents shouldn't be expected to not feed their kids McDonald's every day of the week.
- annoyingnoob 15d agoBut McD did change how they advertise to children. We can limit the harmful practices of social media platforms without banning them. https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-told-to-change-ads-by-childrens-advertising-review-unit-2015-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-told-to-change-ads... "Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 pm, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children." https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/118/6/2563/69735/Children-Adolescents-and-Advertising https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/118/6/2563/6... This kind of advertising bypasses parents and creates desire in kids. You might not be able to control what your kid does at a friend's house or at school. Parents can't do it all and so society needs to support parents. Right now social media is setup against parents, we can change that.
- saghm 16d agoI don't agree with your framing at all that we need to do something and it because to be done immediately, so it seems basically impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion if things seem so dire to you that this seems self-evident rather than needing some further justification. In general I feel like any assertions about the need for something immediately like this should have a fairly high bar for justifying them.
- bigfudge 16d agoDo you have teenage kids? It feels highly urgent to me because the generation of kids aged 12-21 are severely impacted by the harms and cultural distortion these services cause. I think it would be hard to imagine their hold on this generation and the impact without first hand observation.
- saghm 16d agoI'd argue that any teenagers who go from having access today to not having it tomorrow are probably not going to magically become different in the ways you desire; it seems a lot more likely to have effects on kids who are younger and haven't already been influenced by it, but at that point we're actually talking about trying to make a structural changes to make things different in the long term. That type of thing seems very strange to enact by making a blanket regulation on the supposed victims of the harms than on the perpetrators of it.
- baggachipz 16d agoThink of it like current kids being bombarded by cancer-causing radiation. The sooner you get them out of it the better. Yes, it is better still to never have been exposed, but the second best time to stop it is now.
- iamnothere 16d agoThis kind of absurd hyperbole is the clearest sign of a moral panic.
- ryandrake 16d ago> Clearly we can't do nothing On the other hand, let's not fall into the common political trap of: We must do something. X is something. Therefore we must do X.
- bogdanoff_2 15d agoSo the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed. So that is what we should be addressing. Things like -> no personalized algorithmic feed for minors. The ability to disable algorithmic feed and revert to historical feed from contacts. Giving the user control over suggestions and feed via the requirement that it should be possible to switch to a "third party algorithm provider" or self-host, while still being able to have full access to the contents and social features of the platform.
- tzs 15d ago> So the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed. > So that is what we should be addressing. That is what the bill addresses. It bans providing an "addictive feature" to users under 16. It says it does not prohibit letting under 16 users use the service as long as it does not provide addictive features on those accounts. It says addictive features are autoplay and addictive feeds. Most of the bill is then defining what those mean. There's plenty to argue over in that, but the core is just what you've said is what we should do.