upvote

points

by miiiiiike21 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ricree21 hours ago|
next
[-]
The main issue is that they are very careful not to frame it like that. In broader contexts, it's always framed as something like "do you favor limiting children's access to social media" without a word on what it would cost to actually institute such a ban.
reply
upvoteby rockskon21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's about as meaningful a framing as asking if you favor world peace and ending world hunger.
reply
upvoteby pibaker17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can end all wars and eliminate hunger if you point the Death Star at us and kill all life on earth. If someone objects to the collateral damage, remind him that when you said "world peace and no hunger at all costs," you meant all costs.
reply
upvoteby Terr_20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Relevant British comedy clip (Yes, [Prime] Minister) on such polls:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

reply
upvoteby miiiiiike19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah, and we’re starting to inoculate people against that kind of rhetoric. It’s a process.
reply
upvoteby Gigachad19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not really, if anything we are seeing what a good idea taking kids off social media is and how crazy we allowed this to all happen for so long.
reply
upvoteby krapp18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> if anything we are seeing what a good idea taking kids off social media is and how crazy we allowed this to all happen for so long

We're not seeing anything of the sort, and couldn't possibly for some time yet.

What we are seeing, as evinced by the article, is how ineffective these laws are at actually keeping kids off social media, and how effective the mass collection of identity data is at creating an environment for scammers, hackers, data brokers and the means for widespread political oppression.

reply
upvoteby causality020 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You don't necessarily have to be in favor of any measures which reduce adult privacy to be in favor of that. Logically speaking, the liability for minors accessing age-gated products and services is the person who provides those products and services to the minor. In the case of the internet, that person is the parent, not the ISP or the website. It is the parent who contracts with the provider and then forwards the product to the unauthorized user, the child. A parent who purchases, say, access to porn and then provides that access to their child is no different than a parent who buys booze and provides access to it to their child.
reply
upvoteby cucumber373284217 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Exactly. You frame these things in the general case and HN is against it because obviously it's evil.

You frame it as "we've come up with a composite score (social credit) that lets us more efficiently enforce [stuff HN likes but the population likes way less]" and it's mostly all cheering and the one guy with principals is downvoted and flagged.

reply
upvoteby krapp21 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> I'd put money on 90%+ choosing some flavor privacy/anonymity on the internet.

I can only say what I've observed from numerous threads - people's advocacy for privacy on the internet here does not extend so social media.

But OK this could be fun let's put my keyboard where my mouth is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48680434

reply
upvoteby iamnothere21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Talk to people in person and you’ll get a different view (at least among those under 50), especially if you ask about the negatives.

Social media is full of astroturfing.

reply