Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • The law would require parental consent. Parents should parent better right?
    by 2OEH8eoCRo0
  • That's already an option. The only problem is it's lack of efficacy. If that worked, it already would have.
    by kelseyfrog
  • If social media is unhealthy for children then it is also unhealthy for adults. Turning 18 does not grant magical immunity
    by stevenalowe
  • If this was actually about children the law would just enforce 18+ tagging on websites and parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions.

    This isn't about children, and never was. Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists.

    by idiotsecant
  • > This isn't about children, and never was.

    This is 100% about children.

    At the moment, there is world wide pushback on children using social media. Ex countries pursuing this right now: Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, France, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Thailand. I'm sure I missed a few too.

    And in the US, no federal efforts (yay dysfunctional legislature!) but at the state level; Florida, California, Tennessee, Utah, New York, Nebraska, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Vermont, and Ohio are all pursuing different forms of age restriction.

    The science is pretty clear at this point: social media is terrible for mental health, attention, and addictive behaviors.

    Now how to effectively restrict it without trampling on privacy rights? That's a very difficult question requiring some compromise. (I don't have the answers...)

    by not_a_bot_4sho
  • On social media?
    by prokopton
  • tbf, I think many people also want this. Is there anything more offensive than some internet niche subculture living differently, to those who came online during covid?
    by forshaper
  • > parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions

    You have to break the network effect as a community. This is why rich communities are successfully deploying cell-phone bans in schools while poorer students don’t have that option.

    > Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression

    It’s the government restricting ad-fueled rage and propaganda machines. Your suggestion for pervasive 18+ tagging is far more intrusive.

    Where I agree with the general sentiment is in that these restrictions should be on the social media giants. If a child is on X, X gets fined. But at the end of the day, the people calling their electeds and mobilizing in primaries want any ban.

    by JumpCrisscross
  • > anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists

    please explain how social media platforms are the only place where these things still exists

    in fact, there's no anonymity and questionable free expression on those platforms

    the open web, yes, but these measures have nothing to do with that. my teen can keep his geocities-hosted blog and read yours.

    by insane_dreamer
  • We bring back Geocities and use the Net like it’s the mid 90s again. No social media required.
    by prokopton
  • I'm all for it. Social media contributes little value to society.
    by insane_dreamer
  • As you wish. [1]

    [1] - https://neocities.org/

    by Bender
  • This does not restrict messaging platforms like iMessage, which are the first "social media" most kids really use, and on which they can be bullied, groomed, etc. Parents still need to involved.
    by throwaway-blaze
  • Wait till you hear about recess or the cafeteria
    by kjkjadksj
  • messaging platforms aren't social media anymore than a telephone is social media
    by insane_dreamer