[shivaraj1996]

HOT TAKE: I think the parents are responsible for regulating the social media hours of their kids, not Mark Zuckerberg. Even If facebook changes, kids will find something else to hook onto, leading to more mental health problems.

[wussboy]

No. No no no. Parents already have thousands of commercial and social interests trying to steal a child’s attention. You can’t possibly expect an overworked and criminally exhausted parent to come home from work and “fight the good fight” against a multi billion dollar company with huge teams of engineers and psychologists working day and night to capture your child’s head.

I say this every time this comment comes up and I always get downvoted but I just don’t care. I love my kids and I fight every day to keep them safe and healthy and I DO NOT NEED to fight a super villain with direct access to my child’s mind.

Social media is evil. It will be banned. Wait and see.

[ksec]

I am guessing kids / child here means or include Teens? Because if they are not hooked to Facebook ( which I dont know any kids or teens are ) they will still be hooked to instagram. Which many kids and Teens do use. And increasingly they are going over to TikTok. Although instagram is fighting back.

And even if you ban them from using ALL meta product. They will still be hooked to something else. Forum ( That is a form of Social Media as well ), other media for celebrity news or whatever. Ban Whatsapp? There is iMessages on iOS and used mostly across teen age group in the US, Line in Japan, KakaoTalk in Korea. Did anyone remember SnapChat ?

Even if you DO ban all of them. They will still get spread in school talking about the trendiest topic. They will find a way to join the conversation no matter what so they dont get left out. And I have seen this first hand.

I am not against Facebook providing some sort of filter or mode for Kids or something. But it is ultimately the parents that is responsible. The world has changed. And I have always argued it is not the platform or social media. It is the internet itself, extremely affordable and accessible via Smartphone everywhere. And so far I didn't even mention Youtube.

Parenting in the 21st century is harder than ever.

On the other hand kids these days learn so so much more at their age on topics that you could never imagined over the internet. Things I could only dream of when all I had was books in library written by people not targeting my age. ( Which is actually another issues because those who are curious and willing to learn excel so much further than the bottom half of the class, it seems the information super highway has fastened inequality everywhere. )

I am actually surprised at the Hotcake being the most upvoted comments, for the past 6+ years Facebook has been the most hated company on HN and anything that goes against hating Facebook tends to get downvoted.

[true_religion]

> And even if you ban them from using ALL meta product. They will still be hooked to something else.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting your argument with this analogy, but it seems like you're saying "Don't ban heroin. Kids will still get hooked on weed!"

It's okay to ban the worst offenders and carefully regulate the 'market'.

With a free and open market, billions of dollars of investment, and thousands of smart minds working over at Facebook, it's quite possible that things will get worse if there's no regulation.

[ksec]

>"Don't ban heroin. Kids will still get hooked on weed!"

Except I can see zero good about heroin, while social Media ( inclusive of instant messengers ) have their own good. So it is not as clear cut.

[gls2ro]

It really depends what do you mean by Social Media.

For example I define Chat as a different category then Social Media.

How do you define Social Media and what is the value (or good) they add that is unique to these platforms?

[hankman86]

The internet and social media aren’t the same. Heck, it’s not even an inherent principle of social media to be the manipulating, exploitative and addictive garbage that is Facebook. The bad things happening on Facebook aren’t a coincidence, but very much an expected outcome of a) deliberate and malicious design decisions and b) the centralised platform economy that social media companies rely on.

Hence, legislation shouldn’t target individual companies, but “features” that harm people or lead to bad outcomes for society at large. One such example is Europe’s GDPR, which imposes some fundamental limitations on what companies can and cannot do with their users’ personal data. And as negative consequences of poor social media design becomes more apparent, legislators must expand on that and ban more of the malicious practices that are at fault.

[madaxe_again]

I don’t think it will be banned - the commercial incentives are just too strong, and states have bought into the idea that it is a security tool - rather than the security risk it actually is. It radicalises, it damages, it makes the remote and irrelevant seem imminent and proximal, the lone voices seem prevalent - but from a governance perspective, it allows surveillance of an increasingly disgruntled population, and relinquishing that control, that direct feed into the ids of millions, is not something any government is about to do.

No, I foresee a future in which social media is mandatory - if not in law, at least in practice. I use none, as I found it turned me into a performer rather than a person, and even now sometimes find myself at an impasse where I am not able to do x, y, z because I do not have a social media presence. For instance, I was refused entry to the US for refusing to divulge my social media handles - because I have none. I was last night refused entrance to a bar because I wouldn’t share my instagram handle - because I have none. I had to go for a physical interview last year for a residency permit where I live, because I would not share my Facebook handle - because I have none. I got residency, but I was presented with additional hurdles for not being a user.

If you want out, the only way is to forgo much of modern life - and this will only become more and more apparent.

I’ve taken to writing physical letters. If I can’t be bothered, what I had to say evidently wasn’t important in the first place.

[majjam]

Im astonished you weren’t admitted to a bar because you don’t have an instagram account. What was the reasoning there if you don’t mind sharing a bit more?

[madaxe_again]

Band doing a gig - they only wanted people there who would film and share on social media. No great loss, as I hate being surrounded by present but absent people, watching something right in front of them on a tiny screen rather than with their own eyes.

[themihai]

Aren't there programs restricting social media? Why parent's don't just ban the social media for their kids?

[angelzen]

Network effects. As long as the other kids socialize on social media, not using social media becomes a drastic socialization penalty. The problem cannot be solved individually, only by collective action. Most parents must ban social media (and electronics in general) for their kids. Which indicates a need to pass laws to ban social media for minors. Bans and teens don't usually work as intended, we probably also need a wide campaign of stigmatization of said social media, akin to anti-smoking campaigns.

[cute_boi]

plus many schools etc are using facebook etc to disseminate news... and many kids friend prefers to communicate in facebook groups. Many teachers are also available in facebook.

In short: Network effect.

[xwdv]

It will not be banned. It will simply be accepted that this is the way the world is, and some day there won’t be a generation left that ever knew any other way. Some say millennials are the last generation that can truly fight. But never forget it was the millennials who created social media.

[s1artibartfast]

You are the one who gave them they keys to your kids brain and you can take them away

[Closi]

The problem is that the use of Meta’s applications are so pervasive between kids (and adults), this is effectively taking away their ability to communicate with their friends and they will be ‘left out’. Being the only person in your group of friends not in the group chat will make you feel excluded (and might even lead to you being excluded from things like events or meet-ups that are organised on the platform).

Now it’s a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, and just giving your kids the keys is probably the lesser of the two evils.

Which is why we should be making sure that these platforms are healthy for everyone involved, as much as is practical and possible.

[unityByFreedom]

> Social media is evil. It will be banned.

How, by getting rid of the first amendment? Seems doubtful.

[hankman86]

I fully agree. Its too easy for parents to be out of step with the latest fad that unscrupulous social media CEOs push on our kids. Not to mention that social media isn’t just bad for children and teens. It’s bad for everyone. Forget the benefits. Need reminding of your friends birthdays? Get a calendar.

It may take time for the US to deliberately damage national champions like Facebook and Google. Other countries will be less patient to act. I cannot imagine democratically elected governments idly standing by as Facebook drags their people into a dystopian Metaverse where there’s no more escaping the misinformation and manipulation that’s already rampant on current-generation social media platforms.

[tabulatouch]

It all boils down to fighting the distopic capitalism. Which, at the end of the day, we all like and worship.

[renewiltord]

Every generation of parents has been convinced some insignificant thing has been ruining their kids. The one constant has been that they’ve all been wrong.

[georgebarnett]

On the other hand, depression has exploded in teenage girls since 2013.

If this was business as usual, that wouldn’t have happened.

[bryanrasmussen]

ah ok, that's good because it seems one of the biggest companies in the world must be a significant thing.

[devwastaken]

I know a teacher that tried this. Daughter is struggling to be included in social circles with her peers and can't include themselves because online happenings and lingo have become apart of conversation and language. It's funny watching parents be surprised by things like cursing, saying "don't hang out with those kids". Not realizing that's all of them.

Like it or not YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and the internet in general has taken up the place of parenting and social interaction because parents are worked to death for the 1% and social media is designed the same way as casinos. They're designed to prey upon your instincts and are demonstrated to be quite effective at it. I wouldn't mind if tomorrow Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc, all disappeared overnight. Obviously government can't have the power to do that because they'll go after everything but that.

[lostlogin]

> Obviously government can't have the power to do that because they'll go after everything but that.

It’s interesting to watch Australia navigate this. Murdoch is rather powerful there and has some leverage.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/16/rupert-murdoch...

[cute_boi]

Hmm in many cases both parents goes to work so its tedious to police their children. And as you have mentioned bypassing parents is too easy because kids are smart these days and know how to use vpn.

And ppl like mark is obviously responsible because they are using dopamine tricks to make content more addicting. Like whats the point of showing me nonsense news because one of the people I added liked some nonsense? Why to show nonsense ads that says me "She looks beautiful and if you want try this cream"? (mark because he is the own who has ultimate control over facebook and insta)

China tackled this by banning and making sure tiktok etc returns more science content for children instead of dopamine addicting content. (China because I don't know if other country has regulated social media like this)

[kaladin-jasnah]

How effective are parents at regulation? I feel like at some point, it becomes hard, and kids will find ways to circumvent limits.

[ldiracdelta]

My kids aren't getting a smart phone and no screens except within sight of other members of the household. The house router shuts down internet during the night.

Welcome to North Korea. I will win.

[onion2k]

That effectively deals with the problem of your kids accessing screens right now, but you have no idea what the impact of denying access to "social" tech will have on them in the long term. Maybe it'll work out and they'll develop a healthy relationship with tech, or maybe they'll be traumatized by that denial and be far more susceptible to screen addiction in later life because there's no one there to regulate it for them and they haven't had the opportunity to learn how to self-regulate. There's no way to know. This stuff hasn't been around long enough to study it properly.

[blitzar]

> you have no idea what the impact of denying access to "social" tech will have on them in the long term

you have no idea what the impact of allowing access to "social" tech will have on them in the long term

Its all a massive guessing game.

[conductr]

I agree with this approach but there’s more to it. It’s a process. You coach them along the way over a period of years. You offer other outlets for boredom and opportunity for IRL socializing. I feel like this is the real root cause. Our society has largely 1) outsourced all parent responsibilities (too hard, over worked, etc. are just excuses for being lazy, my observation is most parents are glad to throw a iPad in little Jimmy’s face if he’ll leave them alone) and 2) kids are not playing enough outside with other kids in unstructured ways (when they do, they care not about what’s happening on TikTok).

I like to take my son fishing because it teaches him it’s ok to be bored, silence is ok too, also our talks and bonding is deeper in these moments, and it gets us out in nature.

[cute_boi]

last time my parents tried this to my brother. It backfired badly because my brother used mobile data wasting our money. He wasted like 20 usd in mobile data in 1 week and our monthly fiber internet costs was only 15 usd. And the sad thing is he wasted that money which was supposed to be his tiffin for school.

After that day we realized its not easy to control smart children.

[blitzar]

> After that day we realized its not easy to control smart children.

Is your example a smart child or a stupid child?

[didibus]

Your kids are teenagers?

[lapinot]

I disagree, corporations which manufacture damaging and offensive products against their users should be accountable. Yet obviously in this state of things, parents should try and do something.

Personal story: to situate, when i was teenager facebook was starting to be a thing and myspace started fading. My parents did something i find to be very sensible: they responsabilised me and introduced me to computers. I had restricted "freetime" computer hours and slightly less restricted "working" computer hours (doing school work etc), which eventually led me to programming since it somehow passed as working (my mom's a programmer so there's that). I wasn't allowed to have a facebook account and it was explained to me why that was so. Reasons where mostly not putting random private stuff online somewhere i wouldn't control it, addiction wasn't too important but i think it was implicitly said that these stuff eat you time and that now your time doing constructive things vanishes. OTOH my computer was clean of any spyware and i was trusted (had admin password and all). I surely was an outsider from this pov, but i quickly managed to own it and be proud of not having that account. For me this is the key: you cannot protect your kid against his will, you must (and surely can, kids are smart) convince them that they have more to loose than to gain. Maybe at that time it was simpler since it was the golden age of xmpp and gtalk was something i had access to (Adium for the win!).

[agumonkey]

Slightly lesser hot take: it's a bit too much of a systemic problem which would make it hard for parents to take care of. Methinks .. covid not helping for sure .. but local communities should revamp/revive group things. More sport, more craft, more culture (paint, play, music) .. to suck attention away from the web a bit.

[fortran77]

If "online" socialization is here to stay, then learning to navigate them is an important social skill. Keeping young people off social media won't help them later in life.

One of the oft-touted figures was that “thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.”

My hot take is: "That's probably about right." Given the sorry state of physical education, fitness, and the fact that 60%+ of adults are obese or overweight, the fact that 1/3 of people on Instagram look at other people and feel their appearance needs improvement is probably about right -- if not a little low. There are probably another 1/3 that _should_ feel bad but don't. (And boys too!)

[jevoten]

> regulating the social media hours of their kids

Parents can regulate the hours, but unless they regulate them down to zero, they cannot affect the adictiveness engineered into the product. Yes, the dose makes the poison, but I guarantee you Facebook has a team of psychologists making sure the dose needed to get kids hooked is as low as possible.

[georgebarnett]

HOT TAKE: I think parents should prevent their kids from smoking and tobacco companies bear no responsibility for their addictive product.

The opioid crisis is also the fault of all those pesky addicts who chose to get themselves addicted and it’s not at all on Purdue.

Right?! /s

[Veen]

Yes, right. It is parents' responsibility to ensure their kids don't smoke cigrettes and take opioid tablets. It's also their responsibility to ensure they themselves don't smoke or take opioid tablets. I suppose my "hot take" is that adults are responsible for their actions, including how they parent their children.

We should also prevent the supply of these things and regulate harmful corporate behavior, but that doesn't absolve parents of their responsibility.

[georgebarnett]

Your response indicates two things:

1. You have no idea about teenagers.

2. You have no idea about the causes of the opioid crisis.

Also, I did not conflate the two which you appear to think I have done.

[Veen]

Either you're conflating the two or your second sentence is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In the spirit of charitable interpretation, I assumed you included a remark about opioids because you thought it relevant. I apologise for that assumption, and thank you for sharing your irrelevant thoughts about the opioid epidemic.

[0x77x66]

Parents have no time. Shouldn't people without children play a role as well? Especially given they have much more time.

[f6v]

> Shouldn't people without children play a role as well? Especially given they have much more time.

That’s exactly the reason people without children have no children: they want to have free time.