As a British teen I concerned my parents a lot with my computer usage, with all they had heard about the dangers of over use. But for me that was an outlet in a pretty miserable childhood and turned into my career, I was programming and learning how stuff worked. I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
You messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things.
Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
But they don't - either through lack of knowledge or just can't be bothered to enforce it because they don't want to upset their kid. If parents were doing this already, the government wouldn't have to step in.
There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers.
Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion.
FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
Their point is: for some individuals it can be beneficial.
My point is: on a societal level, the numbers are pretty clear that teens consume too much media (and social media is even more addictive) and their skills and attention span deteriorate.
Thats great for you (and i guess for most of us here on HN).
But was access to that outlet really that free for you? I remember our main computer being in the middle of the living room where everyone in the family could potentially see what i was doing on the computer. I remember dial up being extremely expensive (or "broadband" have really low monthly caps) or the connection dropped the moment anyone would pickup the phone at home. Or use of computer/internet in schools being in public. I also remember all i had to learn to overcome these limits and the choices (cost/benefit analysis) i had to make to overcome those barriers. Those barriers not only provided the learning opportunities but also the necessary friction to reevaluate patterns and decisions.
Do you think the current state of access really replicates that? Are barriers really only "bad"?
And we're finally going back to a time where if a kid is even a little bit different from those around them, they're robbed of finding any type of community that doesn't ostracize them.
Concerns of a nanny state side, this experiment is going to miss the mark. Social media bans is a collective action problem. Being the only teenager amongst your peers without social media is a very different situation to you _and also all of your friends_ not having social media.
People understand that this has nothing to do with the wellbeing of any teenager, right? This is only about establishing a mechanism to prevent individuals from doing things online. Why do people fall for the "protect the children"-lines again and again?
That governments globally start to take serious actions against an entertainment form means that multiple academic and intellectual sources warned about a dangerous fall of public literacy, intelligence and thinking. We don't need to possess classical knowledge like any university student had in the 60's but the stupidness of the last decade is unacceptable. I think the situation crossed the line in the 10's but it took a full 10 years for governments to get in the middle, probably also waiting for the controls of parenting, which failed miserably.
I ask again: What is "social media"? This appears focued on apps. Ok. What about web interfaces? Is youtube? Will kids be allowed to use signal?
We all talk about some great thing but we never define that thing. If we are going to move forwards with laws we need specifics. Is this place, HN, considered social media?
(As this is a law regulating both online speech and the safety of children, in the UK, bypassing will likely come with draconian penalties.)
Those with fond memories of a childhood spent playing games and typing code from magazines and having low fidelity conversations with faraway likeminded folks need to know how lucky they were, because these days that stuff may still be there but for kids it won’t win pales vs addictive social media..
For some reason, conversations on HN and in tech circles are behind the curve when it comes to social media bans.
Most countries are looking at social media bans, and there is a deep groundswell of public opinion against tech today.
Yes, in the 90s, tech was the good guy, but today people are frightened and upset with tech companies.
This would be less of a problem, if governments globally were not tending towards authoritarianism.
Governments are more than happy to appear responsive to voter needs, while also finally getting some form of control over (primarily American) tech firms.
As it stands though - safety is a bad word, enshittification is an actual word, and profit seems to be the final word.
The Techlash is real, but it doesn’t seem to feature in calculations and discussions on HN.
The problem with that is that it just creates a blind spot, and a miscalculation in the energies underlying such drives.
The OSINT report from r/linux got more traction, even if it was riddled with issues, giving birth to the belief that this is all driven by Meta.
A reading of the same data sits comfortably with Meta simply taking advantage of the macro trends to push onerous burdens onto its competitors.
I am sorry for the meta comment, but the blind spot in logic is annoying to me since it results in a mis-estimation of the energies at play here. That in turn means the responses or ideas people have are not calibrated and scaled correctly.
People are going to respond to incentives and instigate for their needs to be met.
My guess is that if tech invested significantly in customer support and safety, being more responsive to user needs, perhaps the underlying anger can be alleviated.
——
Anecdotes:
There needs to also be actual signal sharing between safety teams in tech. Same for customer support - Far too many please for help go through slack and WhatsApp.
I know of posts on reddit where people are asking for help reporting and taking down NCII found on Instagram/Threads. ideas.
Im just a Canadian observer. But the current UK government doesnt maintain a consent to govern. They certainly arent a legitimate government.
They have mass arrests of political opponents for speech. Exceeding authoritarian regimes 1000:1. Putin is jealous how many illegitimate arrests they are getting away with.
Now they intend to extend restricting speech of their political opponents even further.
The UK is turning in the very definition of a nanny and police state under the usual guise of think of the children.
And don't get me wrong I'm just all for banning social media entirely.
90 comments
Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers.
Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion.
FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
My point is: on a societal level, the numbers are pretty clear that teens consume too much media (and social media is even more addictive) and their skills and attention span deteriorate.
We just didn’t have those back in the day.
> I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
99% of today's social media usage is the opposite of productive, too bad the laws concentrate on policing internet use though.
But was access to that outlet really that free for you? I remember our main computer being in the middle of the living room where everyone in the family could potentially see what i was doing on the computer. I remember dial up being extremely expensive (or "broadband" have really low monthly caps) or the connection dropped the moment anyone would pickup the phone at home. Or use of computer/internet in schools being in public. I also remember all i had to learn to overcome these limits and the choices (cost/benefit analysis) i had to make to overcome those barriers. Those barriers not only provided the learning opportunities but also the necessary friction to reevaluate patterns and decisions.
Do you think the current state of access really replicates that? Are barriers really only "bad"?
They can use their computer however. That’s fine. It’s the engagement based social media and constant comms via messaging that’s the issue.
I find that she doesn’t actually use it all the time and goes and does other stuff like reading and recently drawing and painting.
Half of me wants us to ban it for adults too.
We all talk about some great thing but we never define that thing. If we are going to move forwards with laws we need specifics. Is this place, HN, considered social media?
(As this is a law regulating both online speech and the safety of children, in the UK, bypassing will likely come with draconian penalties.)
Most countries are looking at social media bans, and there is a deep groundswell of public opinion against tech today.
Yes, in the 90s, tech was the good guy, but today people are frightened and upset with tech companies.
This would be less of a problem, if governments globally were not tending towards authoritarianism.
Governments are more than happy to appear responsive to voter needs, while also finally getting some form of control over (primarily American) tech firms.
As it stands though - safety is a bad word, enshittification is an actual word, and profit seems to be the final word.
The Techlash is real, but it doesn’t seem to feature in calculations and discussions on HN.
The problem with that is that it just creates a blind spot, and a miscalculation in the energies underlying such drives.
The OSINT report from r/linux got more traction, even if it was riddled with issues, giving birth to the belief that this is all driven by Meta.
A reading of the same data sits comfortably with Meta simply taking advantage of the macro trends to push onerous burdens onto its competitors.
I am sorry for the meta comment, but the blind spot in logic is annoying to me since it results in a mis-estimation of the energies at play here. That in turn means the responses or ideas people have are not calibrated and scaled correctly.
People are going to respond to incentives and instigate for their needs to be met.
My guess is that if tech invested significantly in customer support and safety, being more responsive to user needs, perhaps the underlying anger can be alleviated.
——
Anecdotes:
There needs to also be actual signal sharing between safety teams in tech. Same for customer support - Far too many please for help go through slack and WhatsApp.
I know of posts on reddit where people are asking for help reporting and taking down NCII found on Instagram/Threads. ideas.
They have mass arrests of political opponents for speech. Exceeding authoritarian regimes 1000:1. Putin is jealous how many illegitimate arrests they are getting away with.
Now they intend to extend restricting speech of their political opponents even further.