From this experience I know kids have no hope. I mean none. And I think we all know this, and Zuck knows this, I mean everyone. So now when we argue agains regulation we’re just regurgitating things like “rights”, “free speech”, “section 230”, etc. but what do we owe do the social contract that makes us better without sabotaging future generations? What is the actual, practical solution that does not take 2 generations to improve 1%?
I know that an actual solution will hurt a lot of companies, a lot of revenue and forecasts will disappear. But should that sometimes not be the solution? It certainly is for less protected/influential people.
I have no idea what kind of legal solutions people would propose to forcibly disconnect people from the newly arrived noosphere. Maybe we can show harm but there's lots of things people do to themselves & with their lives that are less than sub-optimal for them. We can scare ourselves into believing the harm is too great here, into being scared enough to rescind our liberty to connect, but rarely do I see an analysis that's honest enough to admit that the underlying problem is that we are connected. You would have to work enormously hard to convince me that reshuffling how we connect is going to not still be so enticing & compelling that the risk and harm goes away.
What makes you think people don't get value from facebook, tiktok, youtube, instagram, etc? There are tons of great material on tiktok, youtube, facebook, instagram, etc. There are tons of junk to waste time on too. You can learn computer science, math, languages, etc on tiktok, youtube, etc. Or you can watch cat videos. Also, people who waste time on tiktok, instagram, youtube, etc waste time here as well.
> From this experience I know kids have no hope. I mean none.
Most of the kids will be fine. Most parents care about their kids more than you care about them.
> ...future generations?
Future generations will be fine. It's you, me and the current generation that is doomed.
Let's not kid ourselves. It requires a lot of discipline to only make the algorithm spit out useful content. It takes one slip, and all of a sudden your feed is polluted. I mean, you scroll just a bit slower on a useless post, and that is what it starts surfacing for you. Let's also not forget that it is impossible to set or reset your content preferences. You basically have to create a new account. HN does not have a content algorithm, is not engineered for attention. Most content requires reading an actual article and understanding a complex topic.
> Most of the kids will be fine. Most parents care about their kids more than you care about them.
Let's also refrain from personal attacks. You don't know whether my kids even have access to social media or if I spent the time to teach them how to use it for their own benefit.
> Future generations will be fine. It's you, me and the current generation that is doomed.
Sure, they're fine in that they will continue living and have their own definition of life.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
Pretty much everything that makes food healthy, also makes it more expensive, more inconvenient, or both. Shelf life, processing, mass production - all make it cheaper, but less nutritious.
This is so important to you that you raise it in an unrelated conversation, what exactly are you doing WRT to this?
Tried, and failed. Even before these social media apps, school boards back in ~2006 (!!) already attempted to enact these bans.
They failed. Teachers don't want an additional item to enforce, and students are FANTASTIC at hiding them. Ask any millennial what it was like typing T9. We can probably still do it without looking.
Let parents and students know that if you’re caught with a phone, it will be taken from you and not given back until the end of the year.
It’s literally that simple.
Snapchat has a long history of accusations regarding the damage to youth. It feels like there isn't much winning for these companies. I also wonder the effectiveness of going direct to social media companies, versus having the government pass laws about restricting social media for youth under a certain age.
It's hard for a province/country to ban an app/category of app for minors, no? Maybe it's relatively easy to ban the app/website outright in your jurisdiction's borders, but that should be the last resort, if it is to be considered at all, since it is a huge blow to freedom on the web and really doesn't solve much since any manner of app can be just as dangerous.
If/when this is recognized in the DSM and ICD, it likely won't use the word "addiction". But in colloquial use, "addiction" isn't wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addicted
Even the use of the word in scientific contexts isn't as cut-and-dried as you might think. Non-substance addictive behaviors in the context of DSM-5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858502/
Mis-using terms in legal contexts like these should get the cases thrown out at the very least. But it is also dangerous for our society to continue to call literally everything an addiction in informal contexts. Our legislators and elected officials do not know the difference. And what they do in response is far more dangerous and damaging then the imagined problems they think they will stop.
There's no doubt that there's an addiction problem on how these apps play with younger folks mind and as much as I hate a nanny state I really think government should have a mandate on what's allowed and what's not on online interactions for kids. Disabling monetization for kids content is probably the best way to hurt in the pocket of the companies without being too specific about what exactly is allowed or not.
Having this being pushed on parents is really done in bad faith at this point, I don't want my kids feeling the only ones left out because of their hippie parents.
Technology isn't the problem it's how it's used and encouraged. Society deserves the right to fight back against unfettered profiteering.
One child has been good and deleted one app, but slowly time spent in the other app has been increasing. She’s trying to fight it, but the addictive loops are too strong.
While the other child simply has no self discipline in this area and would spend all day on the screen if allowed.
These apps are too powerful to leave it up to ‘personal responsibility’.
Typical response from Liberal governments like Ontario: blame everyone else for your own problems (and sue them over it).
So as a parent I can make my child the one that stands out from their peers. And for many teens being different is their worst fear. So I don’t see how this comes down to personal responsibility of the parent.
Alternatively these apps have been designed to be addictive and evoke dopamine hits. Why can’t we make it the responsibility of the app companies to stop creating experiences that have massive negative societal impacts?
There's a lot more to be pissed off about, like the OTPP pissing away $95MM on FTX.
I have to say, I cannot imagine being a teacher today.... I know this is a history meme but it's appalling how far behind teens are. Certain states have the audacity to require students to know 10th grade English and Algebra to graduate. A significant percentage are failing and being left behind.
That is to say some drop out at 10th grade, or some even get to continue on until 12th grade, where they will be unable to graduate.
Many are given 2+ more years to learn 10th grade English, and attempt the state exam 4-8 times without passing.
Want to be terrified? Go look up what 10th grade English is, we are talking some of the most foundational knowledge one needs. Themes and plots, character perspective, writing formal arguments... It's not something we should skip.
This is not like .4% of students, the total is nearing double digit percentages, depending on which state you are talking about.
Teachers now have to contend with students who's entire lives revolve around social media, and have had a phone / tablet in front of them 24/7 for a decade or more.
No wonder teachers keep leaving in droves.
Teachers in Ontario are heavily labour organized and you can get paid 150k to be an elementary school teacher. Bravo to them for pulling it off.
You'd be amazed how far a writer can get in Hollywood without these skills.
Troublesome behavior in schoolchildren follow the power law strongly, where a single-digit percentage of kids are responsible for >90% of classroom disruptions. School districts should be empowered to ensure that the kids who are there to learn are able to do so.
Even if schools hired dedicated staff to police, remove, and redistribute phones it’d likely be ineffective.
Schools are hunting for solutions that need either Societal or Govermental led change.
I expect the wave of kids from internet native kids will be given access to social media at a much slower clip.
This may be an unpopular opinion in today's world, but if you can't effectively apply and enforce reasonable guardrails for the safety of the generation of kids you are helping to raise, then you are the problem. Who are the adults here, the corporations?
Kids were swapping porn mags, smoking cigarettes and pot in the 70s and drinking underage back in the 30s. What "yesterday's world" are you talking about here?
Do you have any theory on why that is ?
My second theory is we have a dopamine casino in our pockets now, and it's generally more problematic to self regulate and dedicate time towards your education. FWIW I believe parents are a big part of this problem.
Last of all, we have a growing conservative movement that is basically telling everyone that higher education is dumb and everyone should become a trades person. Definitely have seen a lot more apathy in general.
As someone who dies inside when people use "on premise" instead of "on premises", I understand your battle, my friend. Thank you for the reminder.
Your comment is completely disingenuous.
When I was in high school we were completely gripped by the notion that it was necessary to get into a good university program in order to have a (monetarily) bright future. If that mythology is broken, I can imagine it becomes very hard for the average teenager to give a shit about school at all.
[1] https://today.yougov.com/technology/articles/39997-influence...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/more-children-dream-of-being...
The rate of single parenthood has drastically increased over the decades, which undoubtedly has impacted grade school success more than the “conservative movement” boogie man you felt the need to shoehorn into your argument.
This is in no way the same thing as policing "creating algorithms". We don't/can't go after Labatt for "creating beer" (it was tried...). I agree, writing laws is challenging, but even professional law makers can't get it right, not in the sense that they aren't skillful enough to get it right, but in the sense that it is not possible. We're seeing this with Porn Hub in certain US states. Local laws are just not effective in enforcing a multinational Internet service. To get back to the original point, this is why you might want to try something other than "having the government pass laws about restricting social media for youth under a certain age".
I believe that social media could be transformatively positive for society. But companies aren’t pursuing that, they are pursuing engagement in search of profit. We now know that engagement has significant harm in society.
It’s time to do ‘something’ and we need to start having conversations on what that something is, so we don’t just do the obvious and force everyone to submit a government id for access.
Well, like it says on the top of this web page, the Ontario school board is suing social media giants. You seem passionate about this, as do they, so it sounds like you might be interested to start a conversation with them.
Multiple school boards are so concerned about this issue and they are taking this extraordinary step and your opinion is just that "they shouldn't be" and "I don't want my tax dollars going to this". You getting down voted because you don't have a reason to be against this other than "my money".
It's about roles, responsibilities and scope as well as the allocation of public funds, which is something that concerns everyone and is a non-partisan issue. We created a public education system in order to educate our children, presumably in order to prepare them for adult life. I'm being intentionally broad about that, as some people would even limit that to "prepare for employment", but I know there are a wide variety of views and opinions on that subject.
Filing lawsuits that target the private sector which are providing services that have little to nothing to do with education and pertain primarily to the private lives of students and families is very outside of that scope (in my opinion). I thought that this was quite implicit in "this isn't what we want our tax dollars funding" but apparently people get lazer-focused on personal wealth?
The whole point of this lawsuit is that their jobs are being made harder with no additional resources.
Would you prefer the additional resources required to deal with the issues outlined in the lawsuit come from “your tax dollars” or from those causing the costs?
It’s a classic socialize the costs privatize the profits situation where negative costs caused by private sector are paid for by the taxpayer.
Ironically your viewpoint if it were to stand will inevitably cost you more “tax dollars” when we have to pay the increased costs of dealing with these issues in schools rather than those responsible paying.
My point isn't that teachers are to blame. I understand that the issue is systemic and requires support of the school, parents, and teachers. I just disagree that controlling the classroom is "yet another thing" for a teacher to worry about, when it is literally priority #1.
Isn’t it up to the school to ultimately decide?
Plus, they (among others) vote for the school board, and may run for school board.