[criddell]

On the radio I heard a reporter talking about things China does during school exams. Apparently all schools have exams at the same time and during that period, social media shuts down at night. I forget the exact hours (10pm - 6am maybe). I'm starting to think that would be a great policy in general for everybody.

I think they also said AI companies go offline during exam hours, but I may have got that wrong.

[Aurornis]

Absolutely wild that we’re seeing proposals to shut down parts of the internet and regulate when people can talk to each other on social platforms as a real suggestion on HN.

I feel like we’ve completely lost the plot when we’re starting to invite government partial Internet shutdowns as a good idea. This is a totalitarian government play.

[afavour]

I think it speaks to the complete lack of government regulation in the area that people see such extreme answers as positive. If any government had seen fit to engage in light regulation of what social media can do people might be happier.

[Aurornis]

Evidence suggests the polar opposite.

Governments have been working on regulating platforms. Every time they get close, there’s outrage when people realize what it means for them.

Age regulations are the best example. Every time the topic comes up there is a lot of support for government regulation of social media by age.

Then every time there comes an actual attempt at government regulation or even self-regulation by the companies, everyone goes ballistic when they realize what that regulation means.

This topic is awash in ideas that regulation will come in like a scalpel that only touches something that won’t affect anything we like, only hurt some companies in some specific way that doesn’t take anything away from us. This notion doesn’t survive contact with reality.

That’s how we get these short sighted comments inviting the government to come shut down parts of the internet. I bet the person who asked for that assumed it would be perfectly targeted at sites they don’t need or use, leaving their version of the internet untouched. They never imagined the government might scope creep it to start shutting down communications they didn’t like.

[snowpid]

I think you are too much on Social Media.

Maybe the people of " Age regulations are the best example. Every time the topic comes up there is a lot of support for government regulation of social media by age." and " Then every time there comes an actual attempt at government regulation or even self-regulation by the companies, everyone goes ballistic when they realize what that regulation means." are different?

"This topic is awash in ideas that regulation will come in like a scalpel that only touches something that won’t affect anything we like, only hurt some companies in some specific way that doesn’t take anything away from us. This notion doesn’t survive contact with reality." Depends on the regulation. Also maybe the non intended effects are still worth to introduce the regulation?

[zombot]

Light regulation won't cut it any more for companies that are too big to jail.

[bcjdjsndon]

If it's so dangerous, get off social media, and get your kids off it. It's literally that simple. We don't need a nanny state telling the rest of us how to live because some scared, hysterical parents need a villain

[achenet]

You can always nationalize ;)

[schnitzelstoat]

I can only imagine these people have never experienced such censorship.

Maybe they'll feel differently when they have to upload their ID and face scan (which later gets leaked) just to be able to read a recipe for beer or whatever.

[pibaker]

It becomes even more wild when you put it next to the response to cloudflare getting blocked in certain European countries during sports matches.

People love to ask the big government daddy to step on them and when it actually happens they start wondering why would any sane person want that.

[tolerance]

> I feel like we’ve completely lost the plot when we’re starting to invite government partial Internet shutdowns as a good idea. This is a totalitarian government play.

There's been criticism about the culture surrounding platforms like Mastodon/Bluesky that anticipated this.

[prmoustache]

> This is a totalitarian government play.

Putting China aside, and regardless about one's opinion on the aformentionned measure, I think you need first to learn the concept about totalitarian governement and representative democracy before trying to use those words because you clearly don't know what these are.

[0dayz]

It's only 'lost the plot' if we still believe in the false narrative of cyber libertarianism.

There is potential harm in us doing regulation but there is also benefits thinking it's this binary option of free VS slavery is imo. Harmful.

[zombot]

But it's kind of a logical, if misguided, consequence of regulators being completely corrupt and letting those feudal lords do whatever the hell they want.

[freejazz]

As opposed to totalitarian tech overlords?

[dgellow]

I can understand regulating dark/abusive patterns, but at the end of the day I should be allowed to doomscroll at night if I want to

[buellerbueller]

>I can understand regulating dark/abusive patterns, but at the end of the day I should be allowed to doomscroll at night if I [am an addict]

[dgellow]

You don’t need to be an addict to doomscroll, drink alcohol, consume weed, etc. In free countries we generally consider it ok let you do things that aren’t necessarily good for you at large doses.

[bcjdjsndon]

> I'm starting to think that would be a great policy in general for everybody.

And what are these imagined ills you are curing?