[NoPicklez]

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then?

What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media.

Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impact on them. Whether its algorithmic feeds targeting particular age groups or short form video content that is reducing attention spans and the ability to concentrate.

I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans. The Senior Legal Officer is absolutely entitled to having a phone, but absolutely not to use it however he means. The teenagers are entitled to having a phone, but potentially may have limits to how they can use those devices.

Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive.

[gherkinnn]

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it.

You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required.

Earlier this year (0):

> “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,”

From 9 years ago (1):

> Facebook showed advertisers how it has the capacity to identify when teenagers feel “insecure”, “worthless” and “need a confidence boost”

0 - https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-...

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-...

[shant_extry]

In spirit I agree with you 100%. As someone who (minus a MySpace account that lasted about 2 weeks, over 20 years ago, and a LinkedIn which only exists for job applications) never had Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (you name it, I haven't had it). So I've been watching what's happened to people from the outside. I know there are positives to social media but the challenge is how to keep them while removing the bad elements.

I actually love your example of selling an otherwise good product with a poisonous ingredient and I think the most middle-of-the-road weapon against the negatives of social media is to remove those ingredients. For example, no infinite scroll, no algorithmic ordering, forced slow loading if you've been on it for more than a certain number of minutes, etc. (I'm just spitballing). In other words, undo/ban all technological features (or "ingredients") of the things that the social media companies have done that are deliberately meant to pull on weaknesses in human psychology. They know they're doing it. They hire experts to do it.

You've already got the receipt for this. That memo isn't a company that stumbled into harm and feels bad about it. It's one picking a launch window based on when the people who'd object are busy.

[worble]

Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy.

Social media needs to be heavily regulated to the point where it's safe for everyone, or banned entirely. I don't understand why there's this belief it should have a right to exist when basically everyone agrees it's a net negative to society.

[RandomLensman]

I don't think there is that agreement that it is in total a net negative to society.

That said, with bans upcoming or in force in a lot places, what measures should we monitor to see improvements in wellbeing etc. (screen time isn't one there, I'd say)? What do we do if those do not go up noticably?

[m000]

I agree that the positive effects of Social Media is understated, and probably on purpose.

Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative. A generation has already grown with full distrust on what they learn from traditional media.

With that picture, addressing the (undeniable) negative effects of Social Media is only the sales pitch for introducing new legislation. The true goal of the legislation however is not to "save the children", but rather to ensure that the next generations will be obedient and meek.

[krige]

> Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative.

Hasn't been true for a while. Now it grants people with money and state actors unprecedented control over what ordinary people are allowed to see and mold them to desired narratives.

[krapp]

It is still true. People with money and state actors have always had unprecedented control over what ordinary people are allowed to see... before the internet they were the ones controlling all of the corporate media. You don't think the press was molding people to desired narratives back then?

But it's obvious that social media also still allows grassroots action and organization in ways that simply weren't possible under old media. We need to be careful when talking about regulating or banning social media outright that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - we will be losing freedoms when we lose it and centralizing control of media and communication with governments and corporations (even more so than with the big social media silos now.) And freedoms lost aren't easily gained back.

[solumunus]

It still cuts both ways. Almost seemingly the entire internet was talking about the Epstein files non stop for months on end. Pre social media that anti establishment narrative wouldn’t have taken hold to nearly the same degree in my opinion. Unfortunately a lot of the discourse was complete nonsense, and misinformation was rife, but it still put the US government under A LOT of pressure, to the point where the AG was fired.

Then again, as I’m writing this, how much of that was due to manipulation and promotion by adversarial powers… almost nothing is truly organic anymore, or at least you can’t tell if it is, and I suppose that’s what you’re getting at.

[bluecheese452]

Yeah it allowed them to challenge traditional narratives like the earth is not flat and getting the measles vaccine is a good thing.

[jhbadger]

For starters, what's "social media"? It's kind of a undefinable phrase. Obviously Facebook and Instagram are agreed to be "social media".But is Youtube social media? How about HN? Or any website with a comment section?

[achenet]

I'd argue that generally speaking, the problematic social media tend to be ad-supported websites that focus on user-generated content.

so Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Reddit are all social-media, because all are ad-supported, and all are focused on user-generated content. HN is focused on user-generated content, but not ad-supported (okay, technically HN is 'advertising for YC', but in practice, the site isn't optimized to get you doom-scrolling so you click on more ads), and a website with a comment section, if it's like a blog or something where the majority of the content is generated by the website owner, isn't focused on user-generated content.

The combination of user-generated content + advertising, however, seems to create websites that will try to get their users addicted to the site, which can harm the lives of their users.

[darkwater]

Some nitpicker will probably come with "and what about...??" because we are on HN but I think you basically nailed the definition.

And yes, they are toxic. And yes, just as other toxic products (i.e. cigarettes or alcohol) there should be an ongoing discussion on its regulation for both adults and teenagers. Even if it's not 100% enforceable.

[nekusar]

The problem is capitalist companies using heavily gamified psychology to prey on people.

Mastodon doesn't have this problem.

Pixelfed doesn't have this problem.

Lemmy doesn't have this problem.

Peertube doesn't have this problem.

But "social media laws" would hit all of these as well.

[darkwater]

They are fundamentally different because they are not centralized and, if they are going to be centralized at some point, they will need to find a revenue stream because giving access for free to the whole world, literally, is technically impossible.

[korse]

irc doesn't have this problem

[bombcar]

Ignoring the capitalism and the money, those still can have the bad effects of social media, just perhaps not amplified for money extraction.

[neutronicus]

I’d start with “platform on which it’s possible to become an Influencer” and work backwards.

[krapp]

So all platforms. Unless you have a definition of "influencer" more rigid than "person with some degree of influence." Because that includes Hacker News.

[roundabout-host]

Or WhatsApp? Or Matrix? Or SMS? Or the telephone network? Or email? Or Google Docs?

[GuB-42]

When I had to fill up the ESTA form to enter the US, this is what was in the "social media" drop down list:

- ASKfm

- Facebook

- Flickr

- GitHub

- Google+

- Instagram

- JustPaste.it

- LinkedIn

- Tumblr

- Twitter

- Vine

- VKontakte (VK)

- YouTube

This is obviously outdated but it can give an idea.

[jhbadger]

That's interesting - Github as social media? That's an idea of would never have thought of in a million years. Personally, I'd be glad if a child of mine hung out there - not at all like something like Instagram or Facebook.

[GuB-42]

I was also surprised, but it makes sense.

It is based on user-generated content, it has a comment system, followers and stars (similar to "likes"). There is even an attention economy, and some gamification.

Social media doesn't have to be bad, it just needs to be social.

[neuralRiot]

I would like to recommend a book where the author explains with scientific fundaments why lower age kids are more damaged from social media exposure.

https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-anxious-generation-how-the-...

[xigoi]

Many things are harmful for everyone, yet we only ban them for children because banning them for everyone would create huge uproar. Make tobacco illegal and then we can talk about social media.

[xorcist]

Case in point. There is no chance tobacco would be declared legal if it was invented today. Don't you agree?

[criddell]

How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that marijuana is being legalized all over the place?

[bluecheese452]

1. Marijuana was not invented today. 2. Marijuana is not tobacco.

[Fricken]

Marijuana is not a recent invention

[simplyluke]

Not really. The US has widely legalized gambling of various forms (sports, prediction markets, etc) in recent years. I'd argue that even more so than nicotine there is zero benefit to gambling.

[graemep]

Tobacco is legal because of large numbers of addicts which would create a huge market for illegal supplies. The UK plans to phase out tobacco by raising the age at which it can be legally bought every year.

In any case, this is whataboutery. There are lots of harmful things that adults are allowed, but lots that are banned for everyone. There are lots of things that cannot be sold without meeting safety standards (cars, electricals), or that are only sold subject strict controls (prescription drugs, guns). We do not allow adults to have whatever they want.

[NoPicklez]

People don't actually think that's the case. However it is obviously an age in which we believe kids can start to have more agency over their own lives and make bigger decisions because they have matured (hopefully) enough to do so.

We therefore then tack other restrictions to those age brackets.

[philipallstar]

> Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy.

This is sort of true, but there is definitely a scale of development that means the most harm will be done the earlier you start. Same with access to pornography. People's brains don't suddenly become immune to it at 18, it's just that that's the age of legal responsibility that ties in with other things.

Men who turn 18 don't suddenly become disposable meat-based gun-holders in times of war, and yet we still treat them that way.

[roundabout-host]

A concrete example is the annulation of the 2024 Romanian elections. It probably happened because a certain candidate was able to manipulate the TikTok algorithm using (undeclared) paid influencers and spam.

[brabel]

Really bad example. From the Wikipedia article:

“ No evidence established direct connections between Georgescu's campaign and Russian state actors. There were only assertions that there must have been due to his rapid rise on social media”

And:

the "National Liberal Party paid for a campaign on TikTok that ended up favoring ... Georgescu" and not Russia as previously presented to the Constitutional Court.

Also:

On 28 April 2025, right-wing conservative Hungarian think-tank Mathias Corvinus Collegium filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman because the European Commission denied access to the documents containing information on the EU's DSA proceedings in the case.

That’s not something you would expect from a proper investigation. The whole thing is a mess and what we heard on the news at the time is essentially a made up story.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_Russian_interfe...

[xorcist]

Not a good counterexample either. The link to Russian intelligence services may not be proven, but nobody seems to dispute that there were paid influencers? Also that this was not declared anywhere and the money was at best grey in origin?

In events like these it can be useful to operate on the systems thinking maxim and strictly look at who benefited, as this is interesting in itself without entertaining the suggestion that they engaged in anything illegal.

When it comes to social media in politics, I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim a net benfit. Centralization of traditional media is generally regarded as bad for open democracies, and the ultimate owners of almost all social media globally can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.

[bombcar]

The problem with all these is that the mythos of democracy depends on pretending that individuals and the people at large are making intelligent decisions based on available true information - instead of what it really is.

[brabel]

> The link to Russian intelligence services may not be proven, but nobody seems to dispute that there were paid influencers?

As the quotes I included say, there was no evidence that Russia was behind the interference. They did track who paid for Tiktok "influencers" but it was ended up at "the National Liberal Party" - which means it was not foreign interference as pretty much all media in the world reported. If you wan to claim there was without anyone disputing it, you absolutely should provide evidence!

I think the only irregularity was that the Tiktok paid influencers were not disclosed properly. But the same has happened in so many other countries (even in Sweden where I am - the biggest party had to go through a huge scandal about doing just that) without ending up nullifying the result of elections. Of course, if they did not like the results enough, I'm sure similar shenanigans would've been utilized.

[bko]

Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think.

What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes.

At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violations like kids must be 13 or older. But they choose to look the other way and target only things that's a threat to their political future.

Social media helps organization and political action. Maybe you don't like the outcome at this point in time but it's a powerful weapon against those in power. It's no wonder politicians will try to neuter it. But it will not help anyone but themselves.

[ruszki]

Currently, the fact that these large platforms can block you and they block you randomly (which is the case of Reddit for me, because I dared to use privacy protecting extensions when I commented on a subreddit to which I wasn’t subscribed; Instagram permanently blocked me because I used VPN when I wanted to login) is way larger restriction on my speech than removing these harmful platforms completely. Currently, I’m not allowed to react to others at all on some of these platforms. Even TV is better, because there is contact information for all of them.

[bko]

Sure there was basically a cartel in social media. You saw coordinated censorship campaigns to ban the former president of the United States for example. But I wouldn't discount the amount of political interference there as well. The last administration admitted to flagging individual posts for the social media companies.

But it's true there is a lot of coordinated censorship even without state interference. But this tends to resolve itself as there is a market opportunity to create a better product. This coordination and censorship campaign has led to the acquisition of Twitter, which lifted its restrictions and other companies more or less followed suit because an open platform is obviously better for most people. And you had offshoots like Bluesky that had the old centralized censorious pre twitter acquisition policies, and things work out in the long run

https://substack.com/@mleverything/p-41310456

[ruszki]

> this tends to resolve itself as there is a market opportunity to create a better product

If the market is fair and leveled. Which is not the case without intervention as we know for hundreds of years at this point. And governments clearly started to no intervene even when their own laws would require it.

> which lifted its restrictions

This is categorically not true. Twitter home page is massively censored and coordinated. And this was quite obvious around Charlie Kirk's death, when normalization of racism was heavily promoted, and without a doubt promoted. Not before that, and after that was so obvious that they touched the algorithm for that (I have a far right racist fake account there to monitor this specifically). Also from Musk's own words, when Grok didn't lie for them. And since controversial topics, like racism, alt-right, etc spreads better, "lifting restrictions" mean exactly to form public opinions towards these. The market is not fair even towards ideas for a long time (and probably it was never true).

[marysol5]

Twitter was an easy one to get a ban from, just by saying "this is racist" or "racism is bad" and you're gone.

Went through quite literally hundreds of accounts through it.

[bko]

It's censored and there is a ton of controversial opinions being spread?

Do you see how these two statements are in conflict?

What is being censored? You don't like some speech but that's proof that restrictions on speech have been lifted. Get your narrative consistent at least. There's either vile speech due to lifting speech restrictions or there are still restrictions so these opinions are suppressed.

The charlie kirk stuff wasn't censored. You can still find it there. I see daily conspiracy theories about his wife being involved. Before the acquisition you had a satirical newspaper banned for referring to someone by their biological sex. Do you see the difference?

I guess you could have the opinion that normie moderate speech is censored but thats just silly.

[inigyou]

If it tends to resolve itself then why has it got worse not better? reality seems to contradict your position.

[bko]

How has it gotten worse? You have a lot more freedom on all social media platforms than you did 4 years ago.

What's gotten worse in some countries is the government censorship which I'm against.

[marysol5]

Reddit is a platform that LARP's about "freeze peach", but you get an automated site-wide ban for nothing. And it will link you to the post, it has now deleted to try and show you what was banned.

I posted "So you're blaming jews then?" to a clearly anti-semitic comment and poof. Gone

Are you confusing subreddit chosen restrictions (like minimum karma) and banning?

[Nursie]

> UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets.

Somebody is peddling lies in your direction. These claims don’t hold up to any sort of cursory examination.

[Hikikomori]

Regulate the algorithmic feeds and similar non opinionated regulations rather than content itself.

[kraf]

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. Can you share a real world example of a case like this? You're saying a social media comment about a crime is somehow punished harshly and much harsher than the crime itself?

[bko]

Here's an example of Westmidlands police bragging about arresting a 12 year old for racist posts.

There are 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages. It's not heavily reported for some reason but it's very real.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

https://x.com/WMPolice/status/1282627004018364416

[rwmj]

If you walk through a town shouting racist stuff you'll get arrested too, and rightly so.

[asdiovjdfi]

In my Northern European small city, just yesterday, there was some non-native shouting "WHITE NIGGA" at children in the city center. Nothing happend to him.

[bigstrat2003]

The kid is 12 years old. If he ran around shouting racist stuff in town, that should be addressed by his parents, not by an arrest.

[philipallstar]

Here's an overview of the situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro

[ceejayoz]

Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share?

> The former childminder from Northampton, who is married to a Conservative councillor, had posted an abhorrent message on X, calling for people to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers following the murder of three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024.

> Yet the fact both men were able to address a huge crowd in London is perhaps evidence that there is rather more leeway for free speech in this country than those likening the UK to a "tin pot dictatorship" suggest.

Seems fine?

[philipallstar]

> Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share?

Sorry, I'm confused by the question.

[inigyou]

So people are getting arrested for tweeting they want to set fire to a hotel full of people?

Seems good to me

[kolektiv]

It's a common (and somewhat right-wing) trope, but it's not really true. Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar. That isn't to say the UK has no problem with the balance of freedom of expression and regulation, but it is nothing like the impression you'd get from some sources. There are some high-profile cases which are commonly misrepresented to support these claims.

[philipallstar]

It is definitely true. It's "right wing" because the soft power is with the left (or was until maybe very recently) and so only principled people of the left (e.g. Bill Maher) and all the people of the right (either principled on speech or saying things that are more likely to be censored) are going to be talking about it.

[marysol5]

What on earth are you on about, we've had 20+ years of right-wing governments.

>and all the people of the right

Tell that to the Tory MP who had me arrested for upsetting them, or the UKIP goon's forcibly removed me from their "Free Speech Conference"

[bko]

> Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar

What are they arrested for, or are you disputing the number?

[inigyou]

Lucy Connolly was arrested for threatening to kill a thousand people, for example.

[gherkinnn]

I have no idea what you're on about.

I said "regulate the proverbial crack" and gave two concrete examples of things going wrong. At no point did I hint at "stop people from conversing freely".

[philipallstar]

Regulating access to speech platforms is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind, from regulating speech.

[marcosdumay]

Requiring universal access is a form of regulation, and the OP asking for regulating the platform, not the access.

[ClumsyPilot]

We imprisoned kids for making an offensive video of a burning cardboard xopy of grenfell tower

But we gave legal immunity to the corporate executives that forged fire testing certificates and caused the actual fire that killed over 100 people

And when I say we have Russia-style corruption no one believes me

[marysol5]

>We imprisoned kids for making an offensive video of a burning cardboard xopy of grenfell tower

40 years are not kids bro. and wasn't jailed

>The 49-year-old was given a 10-week suspended jail sentence.

[ClumsyPilot]

> They were arrested on suspicion of a public order offence and taken into custody

He was arrested, jailed, tried and convicted. He was not imprisoned, which I did not say he was. The only thing I misremembered is the age.

The actual criminals that caused death of a hundred people have not been charged with any crime.

Amazing how pointing out obvious corruption is unpopular here. Or do people honestly believe that making video about a crime should be punished more than the crime itself?

[chrisjj]

> Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody.

Millions of employed might disagree.

[rwmj]

I'm trying to work out what this means. The "millions" employed at Meta?

[bcjdjsndon]

> Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody

Define social media, specifically name the sites you're talking about. And explicitly state the ill health that follows when you consume social media

[netniuq]

We regulate the platforms, not the users: We ban (most? all?) targeted advertising. If we still have to go further, we force tech giants to publish their recommendation algorithms and aggregated user data (e.g. statistics about time spent on what types of content on the platform by user cohort) If we still have to go further, we can adapt policy restricting concrete addictive usage-patterns (e.g. the infinite scroll proposal recently discussed here[1])

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48897104

On an unrelated note: yes, I also don't understand how this incident has to do much with social media bans…

> Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive.

also agree wholeheartedly.

[jml78]

We ban targeted ads. Great but then what? My oldest is 17, no targeted ads to him so that means he gets a million political ads. To me, it is just as problematic. I would argue that under 18, there should be zero ads. Yeah I know it will never happen.

[black_knight]

Ban political ads? That one seems like an immediate win anyways.

[dgellow]

You think a 17 years old should be protected from political content? They are pretty much an adult and are able to vote in some places…

[black_knight]

I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.

[dgellow]

That’s a different claim then, you’re against political ads as a whole, not based on age. The fact that your teenager is 17 doesn’t feel relevant for your position

[jml78]

As I responded above, my 17 can't vote in the coming election and my 13 year old gets the same ads.

Sorry, under 18, should be 100% no to political ads. These companies know who is under 18.

[bombcar]

I suspect that political ands anre more about laundering money from campaigns to friends than about actually affecting the election.

[jml78]

He isn't eligible to vote this coming election. So fuck yeah he shouldn't have to sit through that bullshit.

[sssilver]

I'm extremely against ads, so I sympathize greatly with your sentiment. But what does it mean to "ban targeted advertising"?

Will we ban posters along highways that advertise car wreck lawyers? Where do you draw that line?

[literalAardvark]

That's contextual advertising, not targeted as such.

A targeted example for this case would be to switch the digital billboard to tampons because they read your number plates, visually identified the driver is a woman, and your recent texts with a friend mentioned needing some.

[swiftcoder]

> Will we ban posters along highways

Quite a few places around the world have already done so, on the basis that they are an eyesore. Where there's a will there's a way.

[inigyou]

That is called contextual advertising, not targeted

[marysol5]

How do you "ban targetted ads", every advert is targetted. TV advertising is targetted.

There's a reason you get kids toys during the after-school section, and wills and funeral planning during the day

[specproc]

What it has to do with social media bans, is that the incident was propagated on social media. The author is arguing that the ability to shame others on the internet, should not be restricted to the old and powerful.

In answer to your first question, what do we do. We regulate the platforms, not the users.

There are loads of things that can be done to reduce online harm, that don't just say "OK, you're over this age, you can experience online harm now".

Platforms can become legally responsible for content, they can be compelled to be transparent about their feed algorithms, enable monitoring via public APIs. We can ban infinite scroll. There are so many policy levers that can be pulled, without getting the ban-hammer out for people of an arbitrary age, and without forcing the rest of us to hand over our IDs to platforms.

[NoPicklez]

Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age.

I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.

[specproc]

The author is highlighting an ugly contradiction in a policy that is being rolled out across the anglophone world as we speak. I see plenty less-substantive think pieces on this site, I don't feel it's necessary for every blog post to be accompanied by policy recommendations.

I pulled a few alternatives out there. What's your take?

[NoPicklez]

I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing offences doesn't mean we should allow underage people drinking.

From my perspective I think we do need to ask social media companies to reduce algorithmic feeds that create echo chambers or as you say provide transparent metrics on this. Social media companies should potentially ban infinite scroll/short form video content, however this is going to be difficult to do if its based on age as it will fall back to the ID/age verification issues.

Feeds should also not show content considered R18+ unless manually hidden, this shouldn't be able to be removed. There is some horrifying content that can pop up on these platforms that young people shouldn't see unsolicited.

[specproc]

Interesting framing in "we should ask" and "social media companies should ban". We have sovereign states that make laws, companies must comply with them if they wish to make money in our markets.

Otherwise, I think my perspective here is very similar. I'd personally emphasise legal publisher responsibility, a repeal of Section 230 in American.

By absolving social media platforms of legal responsibility for the content they publish, we've allowed some very unpleasant scenes to flourish in the most mainstream of places.

Well with you on the issues of addictive design. I'd throw in data harvesting, sketchy advertising, and increasingly platform- level political bias.

Age restrictions simply increase the age at which users are exposed to harms, rather than addressing those harms themselves.

These platforms have become staggeringly wealthy and powerful, it is them what needs to be controlled, not kids.

[rpdillon]

Section 230 is very important for all website operators. It doesn't just protect big companies. If you repeal it, now you're making every blog owner responsible for whatever some idiot says in the comments section.

[duskdozer]

To me Section 230

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

seems less justifiable as an excuse for platforms that consist primarily of externally created content, have very large amounts of varied content, and select and target specific subsets of that content to present to specific users. It would seem more justifiable if it were random, or not individualized, or chronological.

[sdevonoes]

The problem to solve is addiction. When I was a kid I could spend the whole day and week in front of the play station… but my parents thought me that, well, that’s not normal (and ofc sent me to sleep every other night). Why social media or phones is different? Parents need to teach these kind of stuff to their kids. It’s the same for drugs, sex, money or any other thing

[marysol5]

And as a kid I'd risk being shouted at, and/or grounded to get onto the playstation at night, and the same with my computer.

Shoving a pillow over the dial-up modem because I didn't know you could turn off the dial sound....

[zug_zug]

My proposal for step 1 -- Allow people to "ban themselves" from certain social media for certain period. Every platform/app MUST support the ability to set limits on usage for all time periods (hour/day/week/month) and enforce those. Also allow the user to set blacklist times. Also allow the user to set a "cooldown" period on any blacklist changes.

This is the low-hanging-fruit, for those of us who KNOW it's an addiction and are actively trying to quit, but struggling to limit our usage. I use leechblock NG which is amazing for browser-based sites, but wouldn't really help a kid who's having the isuse on apps.

There are many further steps to take, but I think we should all align on the most obvious ones first and build up from there.

[marysol5]

A BIG BIG problem, and part of the reason that we're so stuck where we are now. Is that parents just don't bother to actually employ, or enforce these systems anyway.

[marcus_holmes]

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media.

Do we know this? As far as I can tell, the studies are ambivalent at best. Some kids are damaged, others benefit.

[rafaelero]

The current consensus is that the effects of social media on mental health are in between minimally detrimental to non-existent.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Probably the same way we know most things. We know it affects us and we extrapolate.

[marcus_holmes]

And every generation thinks the tech that the next generation grows up with is harmful.

After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful.

[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0...

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Hmm, the argument is interesting, because it sounds convincing until you start examining it in greater detail. Allow me to point out how it is missing a mark.

1. Novels and phones are not the same tech. This is not 'generational quibble'; I am simply stating a fact. Just from pure historical perspective, written words were, correctly mind you, called out in that they will likely result in people not being able to commit as much to memory[1]. Move from written to printed produced even more of a change[2]. I am not saying those changes are ( were ) automatically bad, but it is important to recognize where they do fail. Surely, you would not argue that phones did not change the way people ingest information -- and if you wouldn't, the only question becomes whether you are honest enough to say what their particular failure modes are.

2. The nature of the tech in question is different. Written word is static and literally placed upon a page with the intent of the words staying there. Revisions result in a new physical book. The book does not suddenly become unreadable, because someone sent its publisher an order. The physical book does not track your progress to determine what passage made you most entertained to make sure next book is even more entertaining.

I will stop here, but surely you can see where I am going with this...

<< After all, novels were once considered harmful [0] but we now consider not being able to read a novel to be harmful.

Novels by themselves are not harmful the same way using a phone by itself is not harmful. Apart from everything else, as noted in previous paragraph, you can use the phone for more than reading. The comparison is simply not complete or close to exhaustive to allow for a proper comparison.

[1]https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html [2]https://www.amazon.com/Gutenberg-Galaxy-Making-Typographic-M...

[marcus_holmes]

The point is not to say that "these two things are equivalent", or even "these two things are equally harmful".

The point is that older folks view new technologies as harmful, for a few reasons:

1. Any change is harmful as we get older. We grew up in one version of our society, and if society changes we view those changes as harmful because we become less comfortable in our own society.

2. Douglas Adams' quote [0]:

    Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

    Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

    Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

3. The mental models and priorities that the new technologies require are not the same as the old tech requires. E.g. reading a book requires the ability to keep attention on one thing for hours, while scolling a phone feed requires a completely different version of attention. Kids have been trained on the latter, and we older folks view their inability to do the former as damage, because in our upbringing, this would be damage. But it's adaptation to the changing environment rather than damage - the kids are growing up in a different environment than the one we grew up in, and they are adapted to that, while we are not.

It's the same mechanism at work for novels as for phones - the resistance to new technology looks exactly the same. We now look back at that resistance to novels as strange because we grew up with novels and consider them a normal (even outdated) part of our society. Future generations will look back at our resistance to phones as strange because to them phones will be a normal (even outdated) part of their society.

[0] the whole essay is talking about the same thing: https://www.douglasadams.com/dna/19990901-00-a.html

edit: formatting. So much formatting

[aisenik]

Start by putting the people making money off it in prison.

These are capital crimes against humanity. The notion that we just have to accept it is absurdity.

[nobodywillobsrv]

Stop calling it social media.

Call it something like the matrix.

Isolating specialized customized algorithms tube to be addicted to specifically you and tuned to keep you away from other humans forever.

Instead of identity barriers like in the UK they should simply ban "accounts".

Regulators should say: ok you can serve kids and women and whoever else but you have to creat 20 channels and you can't differentiate and everyone just picks a username that isn't protected and they shout into the group chat and nobody knows who anyone is except the provider and everyone sees the same thing.

Ok this is an exaggeration to make the point.

We can't even see what other people are being shown.

You can't even opt out of being secretly show things.

It's evil.

I want a feed that is 100% public. Every single thing they show me is shown to everyone. Like radio or something.

[anon291]

Kids shouldn't have smartphones until much later, like late teenage years.

A flip phone for kids who are out of the house regularly with some contacts is fine.

No need to be a Luddite, but what do kids possibly get out of a phone? If I didn't have work and to chauffeur people around, id toss mine too.

[gib444]

Then first we need to fix the issues in the parents, especially those with only one kid, reading social media and low rent news sites, who believe their kid is constantly in immortal danger, thereby forcing the phone upon the kid, in an attempt to ease their insecurities

This aspect needs talking about way more especially when the parents don't admit to it and to being the instigator

The question isn't just "what do the kids get out of it", it's also what do the parents: they get surveillance and some kind of reassurance. But at what cost?

[anon291]

What mortal danger would necessitate a smart phone versus a dumb phone? I don't understand

[gib444]

It's the live GPS tracking they want. Kidnapping?

[anon291]

Unless you're divorced or super rich there's basically no reason to worry about kidnapping.

[gib444]

I know. That's not what the news and social media is telling people however.

[pendenthistory]

Until lately I thought messaging apps like WhatsApp is ok, but this summer my eleven year old niece has been depressed, crying at the summer lake house with extended family because she can see her friends hanging out on WhatsApp. Incredibly toxic. Basically she can't enjoy the adventures we have here because of it. Even a simple thing like group chats completely destroy their brains.

[marysol5]

Taking a kid away from their friends to do some "forced fun", is the issue here. No the group chat.

[NoPicklez]

You don't need to convince me, my point was that they can have them but with limited capabilities, like only being able to SMS and call.

[swiftcoder]

> No need to be a Luddite, but what do kids possibly get out of a phone?

In far more cases than is ideal, the phone gives them an element of freedom/safety from their living situation.

Imagine a kid whose own parents are abusing them, or an LGBT kid growing up in a deeply conservative family, and one day the government suddenly decides you don't deserve being able to connect with support resources...

[marysol5]

There's more than social media for that.....

[dgellow]

Based on what? Your personal feelings? You think kids don’t get anything from online content and interactions with other kids via their phone?

[anon291]

I get nothing but depression from online interactions with other people and nothing but joy with my in-person interactions. I'd rather my kids start drinking and hang out at a bar or develop a smoking habit and hang at a hookah cafe than make 'friends' online to be perfectly honest -- at least that's normal in the grand scheme of things. They wouldn't be the first teenagers to do that and it's healthier for your social life.

> online content

There is nothing that they get from online content on a phone that they would not get better on an actual computer. My children already have computers (raspberry pis) at home and don't need a phone to access content. Plus, unlike a phone, they are able to use a computer to create content which is a much better perspective with technology than the mindless consumption that is now commonplace.

[whazor]

I'm not 100% sure yet but I think an iPhone can be configured such that toxic social media apps cannot be used.

[recursive-call]

it’s incredibly simple. put parental controls on the phone. when i was a kid i couldn’t download any apps without my dad’s approval, and none of the major social medias have a functioning web experience on mobile, they just redirect you to the app store page

[trymas]

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids.

IMHO it's not healthy for anyone. From kids, to retired pensioners not knowing what to do with their time, to profesionalls doing linkedin "hacking" and "networking" on twitter, etc.

[swiftcoder]

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids

Regulate social media if that is the case.

Bans are ineffective anyway - if you doubt that, compare and contrast the outcomes of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, versus regulating Tobacco companies...

[curtisblaine]

Question: aren't you allowed to photograph or film anyone you want in public? Or the target being underage somehow removes this right? I always thought you can film whoever you want, but you can't publish what you filmed in some cases.

[dvdkon]

It really matters which country you're talking about, because depending on that you'll get answers from "filming in public is effectively forbidden" to "film and publish whatever you want".

[Nursie]

There are various limits on this, likely country dependent. And being free from legal sanction doesn't mean being free from public condemnation and shaming.

So, legal limits - if your behaviour constitutes harassment especially if you're targeting certain individuals, then it's likely to be illegal. Or if your behaviour constitutes 'disturbing the peace' in some vague way the police might put a stop to it.

But beyond that you're talking about the law but not everything is about the limits of the law, and the law is only a loose guide on morality. You can behave in a legal manner and still be doing something most people would consider wrong.

If you take your camera and try to record someone's kids up close in the park, you should absolutely expect to be told to GTFO, possibly by a whole gang of people. "Oh but it's in public I'm not breaking any laws, you have no expectation of privacy here" doesn't mean squat. Nor is it OK to film a bunch of girls like a drunken old pervert and try to say "It's not illegal".

[marysol5]

Depends on usage, and it's a data protection breach if you don't publish the data controllers contact info.

[marcus_holmes]

There's a difference between legal and ethical.

[NoPicklez]

Lets say that was true legally, its certainly frowned upon and you will be shamed for being an adult blatantly filming underage girls on a train without their permission or reason.

Which is why others on the train were not happy with it.

[the_other]

> I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans.

The article is, I think, making several points at once:

- some of the people involved in creating this new legislation are already responsible for the harms the legislation alleges to mitigate. We've already heard (here on HN at least) that Meta lobbies FOR age restrictions; now with this incident we have a civic leader abusing their position of power and targeting exactly the people this raft of legislation allegedly protect (although it might be stretch to assume this person is involved in bringing in said legislation; they might be quietly avoiding talking about it because they know they're part of the problem). We should be questioning who's responsible for the legislation and inspecting their motivations publicly. We should be questioning their motivations, and challenging the efficacy of the proposed solutions given the background of motivations of those proposing them. We should be challenging the decision-making: where's the evidence the mitigations will work? (and this is all in addition to the perceived harms to all adults from the increased breadth and accuracy of the dragnet surveillance the solutions create).

- we don't need this kind of legislation to help raise reasonably-minded children. We should be targeting the perpetrators of the harm, not targeting near-adults who are (potentially) being harmed. The current legislation is victim-blaming, not prosecuting the perpetrators. The situation described is somewhat allegorical, rather than "here, social media is good"

I think it's also saying this:

- how else are people, adults, near-adults, children, going to learn of, and discuss, situations like the one described, without social media? "The Kids" have been using social media for the last ten years, and many of them are, despite the harms, growing up sane, self-controlled, able to stand up for themselves.

The article is making me reflect on our household's ban on our teen using social media. We don't want them getting wrapped up in constant one-up-ing, gossiping, body-shaming, discrimination, and other social ills that go around, but we are also denying them some ability to discuss these issues, learn about them, find support from peers and experts. (I mean, they can... they can use the wider web and can talk with their parents, friends, and teachers, in person; but those media are slower or more awkward for being "in your face")

[ymolodtsov]

> What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids Who said we know?

[charlieyu1]

I grow up with ICQ and Geocities when I was 14 and I'm fine.

[throwfaraway135]

Kids need freedom to make their own decisions, without that they won't grow to be self realized adults.

For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not.

[marysol5]

>For this specific issue, the solution is simple and straightforward: shaming. None confronted the pervert in the train, because no one knows what is acceptable today and what is not.

Huh? That's exactly what they did to the pervert on the train, because they knew that wasn't acceptable today

[philipallstar]

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones

I am.

[fragmede]

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones

I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.

[pmg101]

The smartphone free childhood movement is explicitly saying children shouldn't have phones (until 14). I'm broadly with them although with nuance.

[yogorenapan]

I got my first bug bounty at 16. Not having access to compute would've drastically changed the direction of my life. I wouldn't have been able to afford university & would likely be working on a farm right now like my cousins

[fragmede]

Access to a desktop computer vs a smartphone that they bring to bed with TikTok on it are different though. What was your bug bounty for?

[dgellow]

As a kid I was using my PSP to browse the web at night. Will you also restrict a Nintendo DS, a Switch, and any other device that comes with a web briwser?

[yogorenapan]

IOS and MacOS priv esc.

Yes I needed a smartphone to test on

[fragmede]

That's awesome! Testing on, with a non-zero amount of adult supervision isn't the same thing as being given a phone with Snapchat and TikTok to take to bed at night though. I'm open to setting it to a different age. I didn't do a ton of research before picking 16. But also it's not like I'm actually in charge of anything either.

[adrian17]

AFAIK a nontrivial (5-10%?) fraction of population own a smartphone without any bigger computing device.

[bigfishrunning]

I would doubt many of them are using those smartphones to collect bug bounties.

[NeutralCrane]

Well they didn’t say 16 years olds should not having access to compute so your point is irrelevant.

[theamk]

Pretty sure that to get a bug bounty one needs to study things first, and this takes quite a bit of time.

[yogorenapan]

Yup. I started learning at 10 mostly messing about with modding and dumb script kiddie stuff. You don't just get a computer one day and get an exploit out the next

[marysol5]

This is what aannoys me about all the discussions on these issues.

People come up with all sorts of random scenarios, that aren't even related to "prove" something...

[marysol5]

I got my first legal threat for reporting a vulnerability at 14 :(

[theamk]

Don't your kids go anywhere by themselves? Or do they stay at home / only get ferried by the parents?

A bus-tracking app on my phone completely changed how I interact with public transit, and made it significantly better. I remember waiting for the bus when I was 14, and I would not wish this to anyone.

A maps app is great when you are going to less-familiar places - either into the big city, or into large parks (although not every kid is ready to be hiking in the parks before 16)

I spent all of my childhood with a (large and ugly) digital camera on my belt. Phone is much smaller, and for the kind of pictures I was taking, the lower quality does not matter that much.

[marysol5]

I once nearly had the police called on me for being missing as a kid.

Hadn't got the bus straight from school to my grandma's house, needed to go home first (walkable) and pick up something.

Missed the bus then that was due, and waited over an hour for the next one.

So I was now best part of 2 hours late, and I didn't have a phone yet....

[burnt-resistor]

Limited, locked-down smart watches is what most kids need.

[quickthrowman]

That is the solution my sister and brother-in-law chose for my 10 yo nephew. He can call home and a few family members and do whatever other limited things an Apple Watch can do. I wear a regular mechanical watch and have never used an Apple Watch so I’m not exactly sure what else it can do, lol.

F2P games with dopamine drip loot boxes and things of that nature seem super unhealthy for kids, I can’t even imagine what it’s doing to their impulse control. I am unable to tolerate games like that myself, probably because I grew up with regular video games that didn’t use psychological tricks and pay to win ecosystems to induce people to spend money. If I had grown up playing them I probably wouldn’t know any different, like the fish asking “what the hell is water” when asked “how is the water this morning?” By an older fish.

[roundabout-host]

Not unconditionally, but some truly benefit from them, if the parents teach them not to use social media in a harmful way.