Hacker News Reader

Comment by Forbo | Hacker News Reader

Trying to sort through what's real and what's being spun. Even here on HN, the thread[0] for a related article is being discussed much more. Maybe it's because of the ragebait headline that was used for the original post, I dunno.

My daughter is getting to the age where some of her friends are starting to get smartphones, so I'm trying to sort out what will actually be best for her long-term development. I don't want her to be socially stunted, but I also don't want her to expose her to something that could be detrimental to her mental well-being.

In an ideal world, these kinds of networks would be based on open, federated platforms a la Mastodon, Pixelfed, etc. As it stands I don't feel comfortable trusting the advertising industry to determine how these things should be run.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28812310

Edit: As pointed out by another poster, FB pays NPR, even further muddling the waters. Aaaaaggggghhhhh

View on HN

Who is responsible for policing content on Mastodon or other similar decentralised social media platforms?

Like it or not some entity or group need to be responsible for handling illegal and dangerous content.

As to the article, yeah NPR receives money from a lot of places. Is anyone asking about the motivation of NYT, WSJ, etc? Just trying to remain open minded about motives on all sides!

The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is very open about his distaste for his view of Big Tech as having a liberal bias and taking away money from journalists. Every newspaper faces an existential threat from Google and Facebook redirecting advertising revenues towards themselves.

That being said, this doesn’t mean that Facebook doesn’t have harmful effects. Facebook can lead to negative effects on users, but you have to take content by media platforms notoriously publicly opposed to it with a grain of salt

The very first time I went to visit Hearst Castle, I wondered how come someone selling newspaper could be that rich half a century ago? Then I realized they were the "Google" and "Facebook" then.

it wasn't the sales of the newspaper itself that got Hearst rich, but the sale of space within the paper for advertisements. same as it ever was

> but I also don't want her to expose her to something that could be detrimental to her mental well-being.

IMO there's not much you can do here. If all her friends are using Insta and she wants to too, she'll have one whether you like it or not.

The only difference is whether you'll know about it, but even that is up for question because many teens create secondary Insta accounts explicitly for the purpose of avoiding their parents' watchful eyes.

Isn't all this tech really to new to even know? Millenials are the first generation to really grow yo with all this and only just hit adult hood.

I also remeber everything being bad for my well being as a teen. Magazines and photoshop were the big thing, now it's just Instagram I guess. There's no shortage of ways to mess with a kids self esteem. Why single out tech and social media? What about sats and college admissions, and sports?

Millenials were born between about 1980 and 1995. Quite a few are already around 40. What you mean is probably Gen Z of which some are around 25.

I mean millennials only just now kind of got adult hood really going. We can barely just see if some of the social media during the younger years really had a lasting impact on life into adult hood or not.

The photoshopping just moved from print only to print and Instagram IMO. Instagram is just a different form of it. Maybe it’s worse since people might feel more of a connection with people on Instagram (and feel they are more authentic thus more believable) than out of reach Hollywood stars.

You know, Facebook is actually in the best position to rollback “social media” as we know it today. They just have to go back to linking only people who actually know each other in real life - and maybe at most a few degrees of separation; with the person’s permission (i.e. you have to opt-in to allow your friends/family to view your friend list / family list).

Of course this will never happens.

Why would it? Most people don't want that experience...

The closest thing I have to that is WhatsApp!

well, my Facebook is mostly that, with exception of hobby groups, local-ish groups and few meme pages (all of those are my choices).

Only thing that is not my choice are ads, though those are relatively benign (but I actively hide uninteresting ads or ads I don't want to see).

> Trying to sort through what's real and what's being spun.

Public opinion is important to various interests. Don't you think they'd try to manipulate it? Don't you think that astroturf campaigns on social media would be effective in driving narratives? Tons and tons and tons of internet sentiment these days is one influence op or another, and it's immediately obvious when you find a community where sentiment is organic: the difference is night and day, like between Bud Light and a great craft beer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com