[skrrtww]

> “We work in tech,” she says. “Our kids [aren’t] getting any cell phones, no smartphones, no Instagrams. I write the algorithms. I don’t want my kids to touch those algorithms.”

It's disgusting that this has become a casual attitude and admission by the tech worker class. No one should be getting this free pass.

"I am actively harming children and society with my livelihood (except my own, because I am so smart). Here I am proudly and smugly stating this in a news article."

[tmseidman]

I disagree- I think it's not much different than working at a distillery or cigar company (wrappery?). Social media is a vice not very different than whiskey or cigars- they're addictive, feel good in the short term, and are problematic to have too much or to do habitually. But we still let people indulge in them because they're fine in small quantities for responsible adults, and we expect that parents will not let their kids have access to them.

The only differences as far as I can see are in buying- a child could technically buy a phone for themself if they had the money and create an account on Instagram for free, and in cultural recognition of social media as a vice, which I believe is starting to change.

The overall point is, the law should assume that adults are reasonably intelligent and responsible people, and that parents should be the ones responsible for parenting their own children their own way.

[keybored]

> But we still let people indulge in them because

We want to make money.

> The overall point is, the law should assume that adults are reasonably intelligent and responsible people,

Over cigarettes and alcohol. The most inconsequential stuff.

But don’t say the words “direct democracy”.[1] Then people being reasonably intelligent and responsible gets forgotten. By the hive mind at least.

But people should be assumed to be reasonably intelligent and responsible. If that narrative allows us to make money off them. Not when it comes to democracy and political autonomy, of course. Shudders.

Where’s the option for people who are weak willed when it comes to something? Can they ban themselves from buying these goods? If not, where are the heroes that are working on that?

> and that parents should be the ones responsible for parenting their own children their own way.

There are whole studies of psychology weaponized against children to make them act as consumer proxies for their parents. To optimize nagging.

But every pair of parent for themselves. Against all of marketing. “Responsibility.” Because that makes money.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=b65e8bee43c2ed0

[projektfu]

Don't get high on your own supply. Famous advice.

[keybored]

Weird. I was told by HN that it’s not the worker’s fault. They have kids to feed. Oh my gosh the Bay Area rent/mortgage. Blah blah blah.

Software is eating the world they say but they can’t get an honest do-no-evil CRUD job apparently.

Low key looks like some sketchy that-happened journalistic rage bait though. I casually found some unscrupulous nerd that is making YOU doomscroll

[pickledish]

Don't know why you were downvoted -- I scoffed at that part too. The least we in tech can do is have some self-awareness