Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmygrapes | Hacker News Reader

One thing I'm really interested in is if/how a generation "banned" from anything finds a way to circumvent and/or improve upon things.

View on HN

Of course many will, and they'll have a head start in life being internet literate relative to those who don't find a way to get online, and the latter will also have to figure everything out abruptly when they hit a certain age.

It's as stupid as trying to legislate that kissing can't happen until 18. It's not practically enforceable and trying creates unintended consequences.

> trying creates unintended consequences.

Not trying creates the unintended consequences of a double suicide rate.

Maybe it's worth trading one set of unintended consequences for another.

Double the suicide rate compared to what? Look, I'm not saying social media isn't bad for you, just look at what HN has done to all of us, but in what universe is it possible to create an even vaguely controlled study on this? You can't measure across time, you can't measure across cultures, the confounding variables would ruin your results. And suicide is rare enough that you can't manufacture a control group on teens you get to not use social media.

I've searched around and can't find the numbers that you're referencing. I can't even find a study that confidently asserts even correlation. It's just "the suicide rate went up in 2010's and we think it might be social media?" So to not only say that this is the problem but also this is the magnitude of it implies a level of confidence that is simply not supported by the data.

They'll have no advantage.

Kids who start using a phone when they are 6 have no curiosity for it. It's always been there, so what? On the contrary, they'll be the one who don't understand that what's put online for 5min is literally there forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com