Good, social media is cancer on society and will only get worse with LLMs, Deepfakes etc. All the astroturfing in favour of social media couldn't possibly change my mind on how harmful social media has been on society.
It's a bummer, because I think a platform that follows Facebook's original intent has just as much value in today's world, if not more.
What astroturfing? This is the most popular moral panic of our times. Yours is the default normie position...basically what is leading to all this poorly thought out legislation being emotionally shouted by the mob into existence.
Just so you're aware, all the worst laws are the ones created when the populace has been emotionally riled up into a mob over something, and where people refuse to rationally look the reality of the issue. See also: nuclear power, 9/11, the 90s satanic panic, violent video games in the 2000s, jazz music in the 1920s, the subliminal lyrics trials of the 80s, etc. etc.
Most of the actual academic literature suggests this is a giant moral panic.
The funniest part of all of it is the "social media mental health crisis" that millennials think they're saving their children from doesn't even exist anymore. All the dominant platforms of today are not based on the social graph. Nobody is getting bullied on their timeline or seeing all the parties they weren't invited to anymore. The most popular platform right now is essentially short form MTV.
If we're banning that and any website with "social" functions, anything with comments or upvotes like this website needs to be included.
You're cheering on identity gating the entire internet and a giant erosion of privacy. But again, your mind is made up already and as you've said, no rational thought can change it. So enjoy the new world of unintended consequences you're creating. When this moral panic is over, you may look back with a few regrets like everyone has over the Patriot Act.
I think in recent years the infinite scroll of auto-generated content that bamboozles your brain is considered way worse than seeing the parties you weren't invited to. I think you're the one that's being "millenial" and thinking this is related to cyberbulling or whatever.
> And if its just any website with "social" functions, this one should be included!
This is actually a reasonable take and is being discussed elsewhere -- the "social" tag doesn't really apply any more. "Algorithmic brain-engaging drip feed" would be more apt.
It's all motivated around the idea of there being a "teen mental health epidemic from social media" (which has very little support in the recent academic literature).
It's all worries about the 2010s era social graph driven by Jonathan Haidt's 8 year old podcast book tour...nobody wants to acknowledge the social graph doesn't even exist anymore!
The quote from the article below shows that they are at least thinking about the algorithmic targeting specifically.
> “We want a childhood where children get to be children,” Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said in the statement. “Play, friendships, and everyday life must not be taken over by algorithms and screens.”
I think there may be more awareness of targeting algorithms than you think. May be due to the fact that "content creators" talk about it all the time.
Nobody under 16 should be on social media for their own good, but it’s their parent’s job to prevent them from rotting their brains, not some governing body.
The counter argument is that even if you want to do that as a parent, it’s hard when all your kid’s friends use the thing you’re prohibiting. It makes their life harder, and yours too in the process.
It’s worth noting the first initiatives to gate kids from social media did come from parents, who organised locally and collectively agreed on a course of action.
We used to say, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?”.
Now we say, “Well, the kids are going to jump off a cliff anyway, I can’t stop them, so the government should make a law about it!”
I don’t think that’s the way to handle things. Parents who are bad at parenting will raise kids that fraternize with kids who jump off of cliffs. Maybe theirs will too, one day. Unfortunate, but the kids at the top of the cliff, who were actually raised, will excel.
Social Darwinism > Government Regulation
“Think of the children” is the exact tool fascists use to erode liberties. Governments worldwide salivate at the idea of having a registry of what every individual is doing online at any given moment.
I suspect there is not a clear or even uniform definition of what is and is not social media that would be banned for children. Usenet is attributed as being the first social media application from 1979. I presume many here would not include Usenet even though by the technical definition of social media HN and forums in general are in fact also social media, while also at the same time one could make the case that things like TikTok or YouTube shorts are not very “social”, while at the same time being part of the problem people are upset about.
I agree that there is definitely a problem with children and the internet, but frankly, maybe the ban should be for smart phones in general for children, because the same kind of toxic behaviors that I think people are actually calling “social media” can simply just continue in things like telegram and iMessage; aren’t they social media too, especially now with video/image sharing?
I preemptively apologize to anyone if my words are taken as flame bait or personal attacks on anyone that likes social media or smart phones for children, it’s simply my opinion and how I speak and if you don’t like it you can simply disagree and ignore what I say, even if yuppy are a mod.
It sounds cruel, but if someone is set on allowing their children to be raised by strangers on the internet and the government, they need to be ready to accept any outcomes that come along with that.
Frankly, (and no, I don't mean this as a flame bait, mods) I see it similar to when alcohol was introduced to the tribes of America, when they were genetically predisposed to both increased intoxication and addiction to alcohol; we introduced smartphones not only to a population that was simply not at all prepared for it psychologically (arguably, genetically too), but it was also introduced largely to the young through the adults, who were even more psychologically vulnerable to every single form of predation and things you would want to protect children from one could imagine.
I know people who suffer from both the effects of smartphones and "social media" (some both, some each) in several ways too broad in scope to detail here now (but it is very bad in many ways), even though the irony in one case in particular that comes to mind, is that it is due to secondary effects from their parents' behaviors, actions, and inactions related to social media and smartphones. To your point, the saddest part is that it is not the "bad parents have natural outcomes..." it is the "children" who are suffering and having to recover from even things like grooming and psychological conditioning, and having to "reparent" themselves following a young life of neglect and what can easily be described as abuse from it.
The challenge presents itself there that barring adults from "social media" and smartphones due to negligence, neglect, and various forms of abuse is a far more tricky issue and topic; especially when a double-digit trillion dollar industry is behind it that makes up what can be argued is the only remaining, functioning industry in America.
I will have to stop here. It has given me an idea for a book. Thank you for spurring that.
Promoting failed parents and children, not in spite of their failures but because of them, is suicidal empathy, a modern mental illness that was never able to fully take root in the past, because the world was always much smaller, divided, and cutthroat.
If given the binary choice between “being an individual” or a “civilization”, I would choose to burn down the civilization in a moment IF it meant the eradication of the individuality of those that I love. I would hope every single person with a heart beating in their chest would feel the exact same way, or else THAT is when a society truly collapses.
To borrow your analogy, the Indians became alcoholics because “they were genetically predisposed to it”? Okay, well why would we want to increase genetic predisposition to alcoholism in the gene pool by denying someone their freedom to drink themselves stupid?
You can argue that it wouldn’t be fair to their children, but those who aren’t drunkards could become wealthy casino owners whose children will prosper more than even you or I, while those whose genes, according to your perspective, apparently don’t allow them to control their own urges will fail, and their lineage will end, along with their hereditary alcoholism.
I see no reason for society to bear any level of responsibility for individuals regardless of context, as society is built by successful individuals , and it is torn apart by failed ones. We must allow the natural outcomes, which is that failed people will fail.
Evolution, if guided by humans, would quickly devolve into chaos, as we can’t accurately select for the correct pressures for success. It simply has to occur. Society is a living organism in the same way.
Also, there's no ad servicing going on/major profit element for ycombinator here. Doesn't mean there isn't self-promotion/astro-turfing, and it clearly benefits ycombinator's reputation to have this, but it isn't an ad platform with social aspects like social media.
Moderation is another question. On HN again I don't really get the sense that there is a lot of censorship. On Reddit, on the other hand, the behavior of moderators and admins is legitimately frightening once you start paying attention.
Overall I would shut it all down forever if I could, but if I had a limited budget I would prioritize Meta's platforms and similar algorithmic infinite-scroll slop feeds. I think all they do is addict people to scrolling and epistemically poison them without giving any real value back.
HN is usually not covered.
For example New York's law covers sites with an "addictive feed", and defines "addictive feed" this way:
> "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:
> (a) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user or user's device, and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users;
> (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device;
> (c) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision;
> (d) the user expressly and unambiguously requested that specific media, media by a specified author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision, be blocked, prioritized or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision;
> (e) the media are direct and private communications;
> (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user;
(> g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or
> (h) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this article and any regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
HN doesn't have this.
I'm worried that while these bans have good intentions, they might be targeting the wrong things. The direction is right, and I'm glad action is being taken, though.
There are problems with social media, yes. However, these problems exist for children and adults. A reasonable way to tackle this issue would be to make social media safer for everyone, not just to exclude kids. These problems are not solved with an age check, and if the age check requires handing over PII, that introduces additional problems. We have to wonder what the motivation here is, and if we aren't heading towards giving up freedom for perceived security.
You may or may not be acting as an apologist for the sleaziest, worst industry on earth here, but you certainly sound like it, even if it is unintentional. As this is hacker news, P(makes money working for sleazy, terrible companies) is high so you'll have to accept this obvious interpretation.
Look, I actually kind of agree with you, but social media _already has all the PII_ to an extent unparalleled in history. Come on. "We have to wonder what the motivation here is"?
I feel like it's more the marketing campaign making them seem "uncool" and unhealthy that is responsible for the decline in smokers.
That's changing now of course, smoking is becoming cool again thanks to the bans and legislation. The UK's new total ban on smoking will literally create more young smokers lol.
More importantly, smoking is a well defined activity but "social media" is anything but - using your analogy, "social media" can be everything from milk to veges to plain water - all of which you want to ban because they're all sold in the same stores where cigarettes are sold. In other words - starve the kids.
Further, school and legacy media can be more toxic than a well designed social media site for kids - vague bans leave the door open to legacy toxicity while closing it to web-based media that could counter the bad sources.
It's far better to focus on toxicity, identify what is "smoking" and what not, regardless of where the "tobacco" might be hidden. After some consensus is achieved, go after the providers, the same way the tobacco companies were sued onto oblivion.
Why do so many people go after the kids instead of after the providers? Too chicken to take on the big ones?
These companies need to do what's best for shareholders, which means do the most addicting and damaging thing. Besides that, we have almost 20 years of evidence of attempting to fix it.
Where it's gotten us is that social media is a tool for the president to broadcast threats of genocide to millions of people. Banning or restricting that kind of platform is not the same as the PATRIOT act.
Then there's all the spoofing and the "age gate" software that inevitably needs to be done to do this.
This is sort of - it’s not really the “social media” that’s the problem it’s billion dollar companies getting to push content direct.
This kind of behavior is incredibly reactionary and rooted (if not directly in the financial interests of entrenched legacy media) in the belief that your local culture somehow superior to online culture.
The difference is you imagine kids going outside and playing chasey while Murdoch imagines getting them on scratchers and tv and running stories about increased kidnapping. If your position wasn't astroturfed it would come with bans on legacy media consumption too.
[1] https://adelaide.edu.au/about/news/2026/social-media--sweet-...
Age 25-65 Coastal elites with luxury beliefs are equally as vulnerable as over 65s, but they hold the levers of actual power, which is far more dangerous.
First it was indoor smoking, now it will be for everyone born after 2008 in the UK.
In general, if someone comes along and says that someone else's rights should be shrunk, I think they should give up those same rights first.
You can just look at the US congress for how this isn't done as they frequently carve out exceptions for themselves and staffers.
We’re not talking about a lifetime ban on social media, the argument is certain kinds of things are gated from people under a certain age because we know those are harmful and can negatively impact your entire life going forward when not done conscientiously, and most people below a certain age do not yet possess the capacity to make an informed decision about their use.
Anyone they are responsible for could be forced off social media, etc...
This is just another case of some people deciding other people are too dumb to handle themselves or their kids. Further, I believe formally blaming the media companies lets everyone off the hook for their own actions.
In the general sense, Congress shouldn't be exempting itself from federal smoking bans, providing healthcare coverage, insider trading, lying before Congress, etc...
Many of us grew up in the offline-is-default time, but our cohort will age out. Then we’ll only be left with people who grew up with these technologies shaping their lives and perspectives, who have little sense for the alternative.
The window of time is closing for us in this cohort to use our understanding of what life was like without these technologies to advocate for a healthier environment for kids.
Being licensed to drive is a bit of a different situation as you do have to demonstrate some kind of proficiency, but even still, the government practically has to keep track of this in some way and presumably, that way doesn't involve selling your personal info (if it did, there likely would be the same backlash).
I think that's a bit of a strawman, there exist solutions to this problem that decouple who reads the ID from the party that needs information about it, e.g. being above a certain age. Maybe it matters here how it's implemented, can that be regulated?
The only law involved is the one that penalizes them harshly if anyone underage manages to buy liquor. If fake IDs are less likely to pass that scan, maybe that's why they do it.
And neither of those 3 knows much about me other than I drive, purchase tobacco or alcoholic beverages. They don't know who my prom date was or who I worked for in 2012 or what movie I'm currently watching or where I eat lunch every day or what my religious beliefs are or where my political allegiances lie.
As they say, I would rather be uninformed than misinformed.
A most obvious difference besides that is HN isn’t a nonstop feed of short form video appealing to the insecurities of teenagers, using notifications and social feedback loops and the suggestion that you’d be missing out on what your friends are up to if you left.
HN doesn’t even let you follow people and barely lets you know who they are. It’s centered on ideas, not people. HN and social media are almost nothing alike.