[1121redblackgo]

I actually do think people directly see the negative public health impact, its so visceral in so many parents lives, and that that is the driving force behind all of this.

I love being cynical, but I actually do buy these efforts as being purely "for the kids", kind of thing. Sure, there are knock-on effects, but I do buy the good faith-ness of phone bans in school and of these social media bans for kids.

[jfindper]

I think this might be true at the parent level, but less and less true as you climb up the government ladder.

The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.

[jmathai]

It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.

[lisbbb]

My son is 15. My talk to him went something like this: There's a lot of porn and nasty things that you can't unsee, so be careful what you look at. Also, those extortion gangs target teenage boys, so if some girl is suddenly hot for you online, come see me immediately so we can troll the ever loving fuck out of them. I think it went pretty well. We like doing things as a family, but more like the Addams family...

[rpdillon]

Remarkably, Youtube's logged out experience will still be completely available to all age groups. And an a Australian HN user mentioned that one 14-year old had another (presumably older looking) 14-year old do the "video selfie" for her to verify her account on one the sites. So I'm not sure the fight will go away, but it may be slightly more tractable.

It will normalize people thinking that uploading their state-issued ID to whatever contractor is validating accounts is safe and normal.

[makeitdouble]

Most people probably agree something needs to be done at scale. Banning kids sounds neither effective nor long term beneficial though, and at the core of it seems to deflect from solving deeper issues.

It looks like they're "doing something" while nothing really changes or potentially gets worse. Trying to regulate Meta/YouTube from there has IMHO become harder, as kids are on paper supposed to be out of the picture.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all.

Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.

[seneca]

> It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.

Sorry, but this just isn't the case. I have children very much in the target age here, and they only have a passing understand of what social media even is due to us explaining how unhealthy it is to them.

It's unfortunate you feel incapable of achieving the same, but abdicating your responsibility as a parent to the state isn't the answer.

[dvngnt_]

you could if you just whitelisted the apps you wanted your kids to use

[noosphr]

Banning the printing press in Europe would have stopped the 30 years war.

Somehow I don't think anyone here would approve of the long term consequences.

The end result of this will be that everyone needs to give their real name and address to view social media.

Anything you say or watch that the current government doesn't like will result in police coming for a chat.

[BlueTemplar]

That's a bad analogy, more like :

Printing Press <=> The Internet

but

Social Media <=> Some specific forms of (mostly centralized) publishing

[treis]

It's not that the people don't genuinely believe what they're saying. It's that they've deluded themselves into thinking their ideological right is "for the kids".

There's always been Reefer Madness sorts of people. Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Video Games, DnD, Rap Music, Homosexuality, and on and on. Today it's half woke mind virus and half DEI (for lack of a better term). Most of the people that spout this stuff genuinely believe they're fighting for the kids.

[yfw]

Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn. And its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones. How would you measure any level of success from this initiative? Doing something isnt a solution if it has tons of bad sideeffects

[Y_Y]

> its forcing kids with no credit cards to download free and malware ridden ones

It very much is not.

[dghlsakjg]

> Its not good faith because its already broken by vpn.

One does not follow from the other.

We make speeding illegal even though even the most affordable cars can trivially bypass all speed restrictions. It doesn't mean that the efforts to curb speeding are in bad faith just because it is still possible to bypass speed reduction rules.