Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigstrat2003 | Hacker News Reader

bigstrat2003

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices?

Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from using social media. If it really is that bad for your kids, you have a duty to stop them regardless of what other kids (and their parents) do.

View on HN

Yes, but because the entire world agrees that heroin is bad (similarly to social media) governments have laws to restrict its access.

As for the job part. There is so much stuff kids don't need that other parents cave into, that unless you have the means, willpower and energy to find alternative peer groups, schools, teaching mechanisms, your kids _can_ become social pariahs if there isn't sufficient like minded parents in the community.

Of course you want your kids to internalise self-wort, a sense of confidence, and independence. Hoping they follow your mold and not a potentially damaging peer-groups. But that doesn't mean that some regulation from a body (government/school) isn't helpful. We live in communities.

Being a parent is not easy, and fights like these are really difficult. As a human you have only so much fight in you, and if a majority of parents adhere to the same rules this becomes so much easier to enforce.

Government rules set the moral bar, yes they are not enforceable but it creates a standard that most parents will adhere to.

As a dutch parent i wish we had the same rules, my kids are young enough that its easy to ban social media, but its getting harder as they are slowly becoming teenager.

As a parent I literally support bans of social media for under-16s AND I also do my job as a parent: my kids get a smart phone at 16, until then they have a feature/dummy phone (which they hide from peers because they are ashamed to show it).

Not having a smartphone would make my kids "social pariahs" for sure.

We gave them phones fairly early, but locked down. It was not really a huge problem when they were younger, but social media (no, we shouldnt even call it is, its is 110% ADS FOR CHILREN!) is getting to be a real problem now I feel.

Why dont you use any kind of adblock? Why don't you speak with them about harmful consequences of algorithms? Instead of ban that noone learn from, communicate issues.

It is definitely a parent's job to say "no" to degeneracy.

Saying "no" is easier when your child isn't offered a buffet of degeneracy by the outside world.

The point is clearly that you are causing other serious harms by doing so, unlike with the heroin example. You can’t tear kids away from a huge part of their social lives without serious consequences. Coordinated action means it’s not a choice between two terrible options.

Social media is not social anymore. The algorithmic feeds messed up almost all utility.

Facebook was a great platform for local communities and democracy but later turned into a threat to civilization more or less when they introduced the 'algo' 2010 something and wanted to get money for 'promoted posts'.

If every kid was injecting heroin we would not just expect, but demand the government step in. This is in addition to whatever parents are doing.

So true. In addition, if every kid suddenly became a vampire, we would not just expect, but demand the government step in.

Not only that, at some point the vampires will form a government for vampires which will be at odds and at war with the non-government vampire and there will be individual vampires that disagree with and feel a lack of representation from their vampire government.

Well...yeah. How would be scrounge up enough blood to keep them fed otherwise?

Wouldn't be better to educate children about deadly consequences of using heroin and what does it makes to your body? Noone is learn from ban, and enforcement of regulation also cost much more money.

According the stats in Haidt's book, between 2010 and 2020 girls in the US saw a 188% increase in emergency room visits for self harm per capita - never mind the less extreme presentations of mental health issues. Imagine you have an anxious, depressed and potentially suicidal child. This is a horrifying situation. How do you feel about being the hard-arse parent knowing that they will be furious? Is that actually your best move in that moment? Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to make that kind of choice?

> > by taking away their devices

> That is literally your job as the parent.

Tell me you're not a parent without telling me you're not a parent!

This only works if there is broad support from the entire social group, meaning school and all (or most) of the other parents. If you try this all alone, all you can accomplish is to apply more suffering to your poor child.

For us, here in silicon valley, fortunately that broad support existed in elementary school. Not a single kid had a phone, so it was the norm.

In middle school the support is still broad, although less absolute. A few kids have phones, but they are outliers, so it's still normal not to have one.

I am a parent. That literally is your job.

> This only works if there is broad support from the entire social group, meaning school and all (or most) of the other parents.

Which there won't be. Most of these kids have "social media" accounts because their parents allowed it.

To be clear, "social media" for the purposes of this legislation is a VERY broad term that encompasses any almost platform that allows one user to communicate with another.

> If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin.

You know that's actually one of the reasons they made heroin illegal? So parents wouldn't be the bad guy when they stopped their kids from shooting up /s

And as a parent that duty can be outsourced into legislation and policework. Everyone has a fulltime job- and its okay to limit liberties and delegate.

Pro tip! If that is how you feel, don't have children. Wanting to outsource your childs upbringing to the government because it is "annoying" or "hard work" indicates that you are not ready to have a child.

If a parent forms that view, they should call Child and Youth Protection Services or the equivalent in their state, and offer to delegate the rest of the parenting to the state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com