Top
Best
New

Posted by eustoria 2 days ago

Teen Social Media Bans Miss the Point(thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
70 points | 115 commentspage 2
bakugo 2 days ago|
On the contrary, I think social media bans are poised to accomplish exactly what they're intended to: provide a convenient justification for forced identity verification across all websites.
mitxela 2 days ago||
That's just a means of banning social media for everyone, which is even better than banning it for teens.
TheOtherHobbes 2 days ago|||
No, it's a means of removing anonymity so promoters of ideologically unsound sentiment can be identified.
mitxela 2 days ago||
Promoting it on billionaire owned platforms was always a losing battle - it makes you controlled opposition. When those platforms fall, we can have true ideological competition.
bakugo 2 days ago|||
How so? Do you believe the average person will think twice when TikTok asks them to submit a picture of their ID? No, they'll do it without a second thought so they can go back to mindlessly scrolling through the slop.

The ones who will think twice are exactly the sort of people these laws are intended to punish: the dissenters, the wrong-thinkers, those who must be silenced. Either they choose not to verify and cease to use social media (successfully silenced), or they allow their wrong thoughts to be tied to their identity, such that they can be identified and punished accordingly.

fyredge 2 days ago|||
True as that may be, I find it unconvincing as it is the same argument that is used against teen bans. Do you believe the average parent will think twice when allowing their children to use social media? No, they'll do it without a second thought so they their children will stop pestering them about it.

The ones who will think twice will have to see their children ostracized because all the cools are on it except themselves.

I lean towards teen bans. We already have the same framework for cigarettes and alcohol. They didn't prevent teenage consumption 100% anyways but they did their job

mitxela 2 days ago|||
Then the networks will be full of solely slop, and will have no value. Look at Reddit right now - who still uses it? Only people who mainly hang out in subreddits the slop hasn't caught up with yet.
radu_floricica 2 days ago||
I wouldn't mind having verified accounts _as an alternative_. Not enforced over existing SM.

I'd like to know that when I'm reading a comment, it's written (or at least endorsed) by a human being. Currently that's.. debatable, and it's only going to be more so. Entities with cash and resources can focus on the topics relevant to them and drown the conversation. I'd like to at least know that the idiotic replies I'm getting are real human idiots, and not astroturfing in one shape or another.

Apreche 2 days ago||
Don’t ban it for kids. Ban the doomscrolling algorithmic feeds for everyone. Make them only show people posts from accounts they opt-in to following, and nothing else.
jck86 2 days ago||
Or how about you adults all grow up and gain some healthy personal accountability instead of blaming your devices and society for your lack of self control.

For certain technology there should be bans but it is not social media and algorithmic feeds. There may be speedbumps, more user controls and auto classifiying of user type with optional alteration of the feed and type of content, but full bans for things like infinite scroll are disproptional.

Should sexual content be banned on social media? Maybe? Should violent footage be banned? It depends? Should bullying or predatory behavior be banned? I guess so? Or maybe it should it only be discouraged? What kind of social media does there exist? Is it binary or is it a spectrum, and should different rules or guidelines be applied?

Way too many variables. But what is clear is that age (ID) checks for the wide spread internet are completely out of the question. Governments should not have that much control over our social lives.

Face it, technology changes the world. The smartphone with camera did. If you could, would you put that genie back in the bottle? Should all content produced on smartphones be checked and watermarked and pulled through a selection of governments fingerprints to be publishable? Be very careful what you wish for since every new technology comes with hard to imagine second order effects and threats.

nekusar 2 days ago||
Explain to the audience the nature of "personhood" of Meta(Facebook), Alphabet(Google), etm.

Parents aren't hiring thousands of behavioral psychologists to assail the public with weaponized psychology. Parents aren't running mass exploitation via emotional attacks (targeting pregnancy, anorexia, mental illness, depression, etc). Parents never encouraged or helped the genocidalists in the Rohinga genocide.

But.... You blame parents. Standard capitalist response of calling everything a 'personal choice'.

robotmay 2 days ago|||
Yep I'm also in favour of legally requiring the default feed on any "social" app to be a chronological feed from people you follow. It's both better for society longer-term and a better experience for the users, just not the shareholders.
petcat 2 days ago|||
> Ban the doomscrolling algorithmic feeds for everyone.

HN itself will get banned under this criteria.

walthamstow 2 days ago|||
I don't think so. Everyone sees the same feed. It's more like the New York Times homepage than it is Facebook.
techblueberry 2 days ago||||
The entirety of human knowledge is about defining rules by which we can categorize thing A vs thing B. I think we can determine the difference between Facebook and HN.
adrianN 2 days ago||||
I’d celebrate the revival of the ca 2000‘s blogosphere.
mitxela 1 day ago|||
So?
mitxela 2 days ago||
It's already banned for everyone who doesn't want to send their ID documents to Persona.
gjsman-1000 2 days ago||
Persona already has the ability to access your ID, or they would otherwise not be able to determine if the ID you sent was genuine.
mitxela 2 days ago||
Have you tried sending them a fake ID? As I understand, these companies are verifying the format of the ID, not the exact details on it. Including all the subtle format details like the checksum of the OCR section. If it looks good, they add it (and the site you were trying to access, and the timestamp) to their database.
fyredge 2 days ago||
A disingenuous article. The 30% reduction of teen use is touted as a failure. If this was applied to cigarettes and alcohol, the solution would be stronger enforcement, but this is then labelled as doubling down.

It is not. The sources provided shows that the remaining 70% of teenagers that remain on the platforms are due to lack of enforcement from the platforms, not purposeful skirting of restrictions by the teenagers (VPN etc.).

The article further labels the teenage bans as a fight between adults and teenagers, as if the laws will breed resentment from children towards their parents. As far as I'm aware, that's not how teenagers view the issue of tobacco and alcohol bans around the world.

30% reduction is a successful start in the first year. I foresee further reduction in the coming years when less teenagers slip through the lack of enforcement and more of them pass the 16 year old threshold.

libertine 1 day ago|
The that's missing and should have been done in parallel is the platforms require moderation - of posts and ads.

There's no accountability on META for accounts passing as locals, when in reality are just bot or agents spreading misinformation, scams, etc

This doesn't apply just to kids, but for everyone. Yet nothing is done to prevent this.

gjsman-1000 2 days ago||
"In scary headlines like these, technology is the subject, and teens are passive victims."

"In scary headlines like these, the adult man in the white van is the subject, and the child is the passive victim. The child can obviously be trained to identify that adult mans talking to them in white vans may require distance even if not every person doing so is a killer."

happymellon 2 days ago|
"The solution imposed is to ban the child from going anywhere where a white van may also exist."
mitxela 1 day ago||
it's not anywhere a white van may exist, it's the inside of the white van
techblueberry 2 days ago||
“ But less than a year in, it suggests the ban is failing: A state-sponsored survey of parents indicated that seven in 10 teens are still using social media, while academic research has reported even lower rates of compliance.”

Failure? Or 30% improvement.

“While social media can be weaponized for bullying or hate, over half of all teens turn to social media as a source of social and emotional support.”

Teens also turn to drugs as a source of of social and emotional support.

“ Adult saviorism is rooted in the belief that teens are, again, passive victims but who need to be rescued by adults.”

Ironically the thesis of this article. In fact I would say by banning teens from social media, we may be implicitly increasing their agency, since they’ll have to figure out how to interface with a set of technolgies that are not optimized for them.

There’s something really dystopian to me about “designing for teens in mind” and I think maybe the unintended consequence of this kind of thinking is just - the continued marketable capture of segments.

What this person is basically advocating for is a new way for tech companies to extract more value from our youth.

The whole point of being a teenager is to generate your own ways to rebel against the fact that the adult world isn’t quite built for you.

This “facebook but for teenagers” is just another opiate for the masses.

ElProlactin 1 day ago||
What a surprise! Researchers who have a good grift going studying how young people use social media don't want it banned outright. Instead, they want some unspecified conversation in which they have a role deciding how technology can be "better shaped", which coincidentally allows their grift to keep going.

> The companion narrative to technological determinism is something I’d call adult saviorism. Adult saviorism is rooted in the belief that teens are, again, passive victims but who need to be rescued by adults. In this narrative, teens lack the media literacy or judgment to save themselves. The conclusion to this line of thinking, when it comes to regulation, is that teens need not be involved, since they themselves are compromised.

This totally devalues the long-accepted wisdom that adults are responsible for raising children and sometimes have to make decisions that children don't like but that are necessary and beneficial for their well-being.

In the author's narrative, teens who have no meaningful context in which to understand how their brains are being manipulated by multi-billion dollar companies for profit are somehow supposed to participate in proposing regulations that protect them from said companies.

> While adult saviorism is, in many ways, well-intentioned, often coming from a place of concern about child safety, it fails to recognize teens’ expertise and creativity in using technology. Most teens are skeptical that their parents and policymakers know better than they do about the good and bad of the online world, and for good reason. Consider the U.S. congressional hearing held in 2021, in which Facebook’s then global head of safety was asked by Senator Richard Blumenthal, “Will you commit to ending Finsta?” Needless to say, such embarrassing lines of questioning — which neither began nor ended with Blumenthal — should inspire very little confidence.

Teens think they know more than their elders?!? What an astonishing revelation!

This is such a straw man argument. Arguing that some geezer in Congress saying "Finsta" is evidence that adults are incapable of making sensible decisions about protections for children is a bad look for anyone associated with an institution of higher learning.

ricardobeat 2 days ago||
> Teens will find creative ways to access these or even more unregulated spaces

The article is missing the point entirely. The conversation is not about “regulated spaces”, but removing them from spaces created entirely to drive advertisement, mindless engagement and consumption. If they find other spaces to join without that, perfect - it worked!

iLoveOncall 2 days ago||
They don't care about social media bans, they care about linking users to their government ID.

It's baffling to me that anyone has still not realized that.

howunfortunate 2 days ago|
Who is "they"?

I care about social media bans.

iLoveOncall 2 days ago||
The people introducing those laws and the people financing them. Meta is the biggest lobbyist in the US for this, why do you think that is?
mitxela 1 day ago||
Because it removes their liability for intentionally pushing addiction on teenagers?
giantg2 2 days ago|
The reason social media bans miss yhe point is because they will be replaced by other addictive/predatory technology, such as gaming. It's wack-a-mole - ban one thing and another pops up. Parental involvement and school education about addiction in all its forms is the best (not perfect) solution. The goal is to allow adolescents to grow into knowledge and responsible adults. Infantilizing them and delaying their exposure to the world only delays that development. And most age verification tech just undermines privacy.
ricardobeat 2 days ago||
It’s easy to say, but do you want a teenage mind to compete against an army of thousands of marketers and engineers, with billions of dollars on the line, to see who wins that battle? It’s not a level playing field.
TomGarden 2 days ago||
This. To be fair, adults should not be subject to this dynamic either. The lawmakers have failed to legislate around social media, and this is a weak fallback option.
techblueberry 2 days ago|||
I think the difference about the social media moral panic if you want to call it that is it’s about form not content.

I think there are plenty of adults who think maybe there are certain types of social media patterns that should be banned outright.

It’s not whack a mole - I _want_ my kid to engage with a replacement technology like gaming. I’m not worried about my kid playing GTA vi all day. I’m not worried about content. I’m not even really worried about Andrew Tate. I’m worried about the specific way mindless algorithmic applications mimic cigarettes more than “satanic heavy metal rock concerts”

My kid needs more satan in his life! And less growth hacker.

giantg2 2 days ago||
It's not about content. Modern games have similar addictive traits, and they even admit it. Stuff like loot crates, custom skins, pay to unlock stuff early, etc. Even things like "seasons" and rank resets because without them "engagement was dropping".
hbs18 1 day ago||
Not even that. Play Forza Horizon and you'll notice how you get ADHD-inducing pings and pongs all over your screen for literally just doing basic actions in the game.
watwut 2 days ago|||
Facebook measured "sentiment" and then shown weight loss influencers bullshit ads to teenagers deemed "more insecure about their looks".

Yes it feeds directly into anorexia. And yes, it had that effect.

Education wont counteract these effects, not when the company can put staggering amount of money into A/B testing for maximal impact.

giantg2 2 days ago||
What education will do is show that to the world. Then we might legislate privacy mechanisms that would make this sort of abuse illegal and less likely to occur for all people.
zeroonetwothree 2 days ago|||
Gaming is much healthier than social media.
Hizonner 2 days ago||
Sure, Jan.
phoghed 2 days ago||
> The goal is to allow adolescents to grow into knowledge and responsible adults. Infantilizing them and delaying their exposure to the world only delays that development.

Epstein et al. had similar beliefs about banging them

More comments...