Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.
> legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents."
The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element.
Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.
Sorry, I don't know what this means.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
> ...rest of the comment
I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent."
So I asked:
What do you think the person you are responding too's position is?
What do you think is the best defense for that position?
What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense?
> I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad.
How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad?
We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children.
Facebook is modern day tobacco.
I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument.
> that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit.
The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.
The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that simple), is the so far most effective method to reduce usage of these substances.
Thus the highly retributive, reactionary USA government, or its local manifestations, can't be trusted to make these kinds of laws well.
Great, it banned tik tok for the kids. It passed a morality law. You know, fox news isn't really news, and some have suggested to that it provides a direct path to radicalization that leads to political violence. We should probably ban that, too. Don't worry, if you want to watch it, you can unlock it by applying at the local Office of Moral Wellbeing, just provide a photocopy of your photo ID and proof of address for them to file. That way if Fox changes channel registration, they have a list of all the people that watch it, so they can send someone to let you know the channel number changed.
TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example.
You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction engineers working on creating the state of addiction. Engineers working on figuring out how to get people to spend the maximum amount of time possible on the apps.
At some point it becomes a health issue. Stimulus is stimulus. Dopamine dysfunction is real.
What's the difference between scrolling an infinite feed for 10 hours and feeling good on an opium den couch for 10 hours? I am not saying thats a perfect comparison, but I don't think it's as simple as morality. These social media apps cause real biological response and there are engineers literally work on manipulating those responses.
The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.
Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.
I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."
There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.
I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.
I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.
> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.
I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.
Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.
In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.
Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.
Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I don't know how to deal with that.
Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?
Basically yes.
> Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I only use the Fox news example as a wake up call to conservatives cackling gleefully as the government of Ohio shutting down access to a social media platform.
Actually the core of my fear revolves around that: the American government at all levels, in any state, is highly reactionary, and I'm afraid of it using its newly discovered power to get away with this sort of thing to start banning communication among leftists. Or, something I think it will try in the next two years, banning communication among LGBT people.
Well, I guess this is where I wish communities had more power to organize their own protections and arrangements. Imagine if one town wanted to ban fox news for example, the USA government would probably step in and enforce a lawsuit against them. It seems the power dynamics are out of wack.
Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.
Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.
I am not about to defend either.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?
I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It
So I’m more of a fan of seeing that. Not the actual outcome.
Would make more people choose more collaborative solutions faster.
Ironically posted on a social media site (Hacker News has the characteristics of "Social Media Site" under this definition).
Reddit would also be gone.
It's funny to read all the comments from people who think "social media" just means "sites I don't like"
Is there? Is there to your 80 year old senator and their constituents that think the internet is a series of tubes. You know, the constituents that actually vote?
Does it matter how well you explain it anyway? Modern political language lacks definition by design. Do street interviews and ask Americans what socialism is. Then ask them what they'd call the government giving banks money. Then ask them how many times in the last 20 years the government has given banks money.
My argument is that we should just not let the governments pass these kinds of laws because it opens the door to using these laws to arbitrarily block whatever website they can vaguely hand wave as "social media" or whatever they pick.
They don't, especially when they're throwing their weight around after screaming about internet boogeymen for years.
Go watch the Tiktok hearings. They were losing their minds because filters could track your eyes and your cell phone could use the internal wifi network in order to access the internet.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child.
Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.
I lived there for a few years in college and while I’m somewhat surprised the law passed, I’m not that surprised.
It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like.
Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites you use on a daily basis require strict ID verification. Are you really ready to be doing the ID verification dance with GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News and every other big site on the internet just to post?
Of course not. You're going to sign up for a VPN and use it, just like all of the 17 year old kids who just want to use the internet like normal people.
- Chilling effect on political discussions. Good luck campaigning to overturn these laws if you can't do so without fear of reprisal from government officials or your local community.
- Limiting the ability for marginalized groups to seek support; LGBTQ youth, ex-mormons, etc., would be directly harmed by this.
Because right now you can be anonymous/pseudonymous? Of course people will try to unmask you, but I'm contrasting it in a world where you can't even attempt it.
Thank you for your time.
Though it is nice to allow various beliefs, it is more important to have a cohesive community, even if it means sacrificing some personal beliefs. Personal values should line up with community values. If they are in contradiction, an open discussion should be had to realign them.
The time to push back is now, before we give them this power.
As an aside, I lived in Utah for many years and I generally thought people preferred to not have the government dictating what was allowed and not allowed.
You not wanting to explain something to your kids and enforce limits based on said explanations isn't a reason to make a law.
Paradoxically, TikTok and Instagram could pass in a limited form. What is targeted is communication between people, mindless consumption is fine by that law.
> Utah has become the first US state to require social media firms get parental consent for children to use their apps and verify users are at least 18.
> The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents.
So there would very much be something you could do about it, and your kids would find out.
You're still the quote-unquote bad guys. You still have to, gasp, parent.
What is amazing is that they have this strong stance on how to restrictively govern the people inside their borders, but yet expect to have a western lifestyle support them. More organizations should stand up and say "I'll pass" in a blanket ban on them.
I think you're crossing a line here. You are accusing the Mormons in Utah of having a us-versus-them mentality. But your own comment tries to turn readers against Mormons.
Never forget: The Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Mormon Extermination Order, was issued on October 27, 1838, by Governor Lilburn Boggs. The order authorized the expulsion of Mormons from the state and is sometimes referred to as the "Mormon Kill Law". However, the order was rescinded by Governor Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in 1976.
I think we should all be more charitable to Mormons after what they've been through.
The unspoken intentions of this bill given the state's recent legislative priorities are absolutely horrifying.
What about adults? They may be lying kids. So either no access (safer) or strict age checks involving checking licenses and stuff. But that’s expensive. No Utah is easier.
How do you know they’re in Utah? IP addresses. Blocks people outside Utah? Sorry, our lawyers made us do this. Complain to your reps that Utah is messing with your state’s citizens. VPNs? Maybe gotta block that too.
Utah is not a big state. The social networks could easily use this to try to “teach a lesson”. Just say you’ll let Utahans back in when their government makes a foolproof age verification system.
And wait.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the intent of the law, it just seems unenforceable/unimplementable, as usual. No benefit to the social networks but huge legal downsides.
Be careful what you wish for ;-)
Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.
If you join Facebook, it doesn’t signal anything because everyone is on Facebook. Or Instagram. Or TikTok. Or any of the other called out platforms.
Notwithstanding the fact that many so-called marginalized minorities are also terribly bullied online.
Is this not exactly them telling people how to live their lives? "Live offline."
That has never worked before. I don't think it'll work in the future.
It's not about every aspect of life but a few key norms. I see this predatory social media like gambling if not worse, and gambling is regulated in most places
It would be a VERY interesting natural experiment if that did happen. People would find ways back on, but not everyone would be willing to go through the hoops. What would that do in even a month or two?
...and that's why the first amendment exists.
It's also quite possible that this law gets thrown out as unconstitutional by the federal courts since it seems similar to the California video game censorship law from Brown v. EMA.