[HN Gopher] Dear Zuckerberg, We're writing to urge you to cancel...
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Zuckerberg, We're writing to urge you to cancel Instagram for
children [pdf]
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 324 points
Date : 2021-04-16 10:04 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (commercialfreechildhood.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (commercialfreechildhood.org)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Most adults are addicted to this trash, imagine how addicting or
| harmful this shit is for children.
|
| We need to do better.
| joseluisq wrote:
| Yes, this sh*t must stop infecting our children.
|
| But in current conditions, sadly this trash will continue to
| harm our children if parents as well as those big tech
| companies don't tackle the problem seriously. It's sad that
| even they promote or allow it directly or indirectly.
|
| Fortunately there are parents aware about this flagellum and
| it's harmful impact in the society, specially in our young
| people. And they don't allow that this happens to their
| children.
| ngngngng wrote:
| Instagram is the kind of thing that I really want to like. I
| like taking pictures, I want to share them with friends, I want
| to keep up with close friends and whats going on in their lives
| even when living far away.
|
| But no matter how much work I put in to tailoring my feed, it
| just shows me half naked people that aren't my friends.
| biztos wrote:
| I'm pretty active on Instagram and I don't do any specific
| "tailoring" of my feed. I see about 80% fine art, 15% friends
| posting about their lives, and 5% semi-famous people I chose
| to follow.
|
| I don't know what I'm doing right there other than heart-ing
| stuff I like and only following what interests me.
|
| I'm sure Zuck will destroy it eventually but for now, Insta
| is the anti-Facebook for me and a source of much positivity.
|
| Maybe do less tailoring? I hope it can be useful for you too.
| ngngngng wrote:
| Maybe I should start a new one and just follow a couple
| dozen people I like. I think a lot of the issue could be me
| following hashtags or topics or whatever instagram calls
| them. For example, if I follow backpacking, the first few
| posts will be relevant, then it will devolve into people
| abusing the hashtag system and me seeing content I'm not
| interested in.
| mgerullis wrote:
| If you follow the right accounts, it will actually turn
| into a nice experience. Personally I never followed many
| hashtags, instead I used to follow high quality
| photography accounts. I believe that a small percentage
| got sold at some point and turned into trash but the
| majority of my feed was quite tailored and nice.
| xixixao wrote:
| Instagram feed only shows you accounts you follow.
|
| Search tab on the other hand shows you any accounts IG thinks
| are relevant to you.
|
| This makes me question the veracity of your comment, unless
| you meant the Search tab (and even then it's based on your
| interaction in the app - if you don't click on half-naked
| people, the app won't show them to you).
| aeon97 wrote:
| I think the feed also shows ads/"promoted content"? Or that
| may just be the stories feature. I've had my account
| deactivated for a few months so I might misremember.
| Usually the ads I remember did not involve half-naked
| people, but I think it's a subjective measure, and so
| influencers' promoted content could be racier to some than
| others.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Instagram feed shows you suggested stuff when there's no
| unseen content. I only follow a few people, if I open
| Instagram is mostly suggested things
| gnicholas wrote:
| I see lots of racy advertisements on FB, and I have no idea
| why. For general privacy reasons, I use FB in a dedicated
| browser. I do not 'like' companies or products on FB, nor do
| I follow any celebrities. I don't look at pornography, nor
| does anyone else at my IP address. Do they just show me this
| stuff because I'm a man? FB knows I'm married, so I wouldn't
| think I'd be in the most receptive demographic for this sort
| of thing. Whenever I check "why did I see this ad?", it
| always just says they're trying to reach adults in the US.
| But my wife never gets ads like this, even though they are
| purportedly ads for racy women's clothing.
|
| I don't use FB much, and stuff like this makes me think I'm
| doing the right thing (OTOH, I just realized I forgot my good
| friend's bday yesterday, so I guess it's good for that one
| thing).
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Do they just show me this stuff because I 'm a man?_
|
| I'd say yes. I made a fake Facebook account so I could
| participate in my locale's groups without being doxxed, as
| I've witnessed a single mother get doxxed by the mayor for
| disagreeing with his policy. I get shown racy posts and
| friend suggestions based on the fake demographics I set on
| the account.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Yes, we need better parents who take responsibility instead of
| whining and putting blame on others.
| criddell wrote:
| Isn't it a false dichotomy? Can't we hope for parents to be
| more involved and also push for companies to act in a more
| socially responsible way?
| philistine wrote:
| There is no whining or any assignment of blame in the letter.
| It is a very cogently worded request to refrain from adapting
| a purpose-built app meant to drive engagement at all cost
| (Instagram) for kids under 13.
|
| Of course there is a political play here: if this group gets
| Zuckerberg to back down and admit his product might not be
| good for people under 13, then an argument can be made
| against Instagram as a whole. Perhaps you disagree with that
| point?
| tharne wrote:
| Good luck with the letter. It's hard to convince someone who's
| certain that they already know everything.
| pickledcods wrote:
| I'm tech savvy, raised my kids internet liberal, gave them lots
| of freedom and educated them so they could protect themselves
| without adult supervision. Training to cope with unexpected
| situations is far more important than withholding them from
| exposure because you won't be there when it eventually does
| happen. They are now very literate and use those skills to get
| the best out of university.
|
| With all their experience and knowledge, they are now warning me:
| "Dad, facebook/instagram has become a toxic cesspool that isn't
| fun anymore and should be avoided at all cost!!"
|
| If that isn't a signal to protect youngsters...
| maaand wrote:
| Steve Jobs didnt allow his kids to use Ipad & Iphone, pretty
| sure, Zuck doesn't allow his kids on social media.
| ProAm wrote:
| Steve didnt even acknowledge one of his kids existed for years.
| kart23 wrote:
| I'm feeling super pessimistic about this. The amount of brand
| recognition and power that Instagram holds over twenty-somethings
| is insane, and it seems like a given that they're here to stay.
|
| I actually like VSCO a lot more than Instagram because it doesn't
| display follow counts, and there's no concept of likes. All in
| all, a much better experience and a lot less addictive. I just
| wish you had the option to go private, since I really don't like
| the idea of not knowing whos viewing my photos.
| takeda wrote:
| There were open source social network solutions, feels like
| that would fit perfectly there. Because you deploy it, you have
| full control who is using it.
|
| I never used any of them, so I'm wondering if they still exist.
| m1117 wrote:
| Why parents who think so can't just ask kids not to go to
| instagram? So dumb.
| wussboy wrote:
| Your comment enrages me. Parenting is a full time battle
| against both the will of your children and the marketing spend
| of billion dollar companies. I worry myself sick and drive
| myself to exhaustion trying to raise sane and happy children,
| pouring my entire resources in to this battle and you think I
| should just tell my kids not to do something and problem
| solved? You think that counts for anything against the billion
| dollar marketing budget? The team of experts whose only job is
| to make my kids rebel against my wishes?
|
| This post contained no profanity, but that is only because of
| Hacker News' general policy of civil discussion. I'm. Furious.
| pjerem wrote:
| Thank you.
|
| Parenting is really about saying << no >> everyday to the
| person you love the most on this universe when he deeply want
| something, while knowing you would have want it either,
| really wanting to say << yes >> because you want him to be
| the happiest person on the world but knowing, as a boring
| adult, that you must say no.
|
| And if you want to succeed, you have to explain why.
|
| And you have to do that everyday.
|
| And I have to admit that you probably have more interesting
| topics to discuss with your 9yo than explaining what's wrong
| with social medias and its dangers, and why you won't change
| your mind even if all his friends already are on Instakids.
|
| It's not that the the topic is not interesting to discuss
| with your child, it's that at 9yo, they just don't care about
| it. And they shouldn't even have to care, because a 9yo have
| really, really more interesting things to live than being on
| Instakids.
|
| Zuckerberg is forcing every parent on this planet to have
| this useless, meaningless and boring conversation just
| because he want to spy children with the hope of selling them
| some Coca-Cola. That's another proof of his total absence of
| ethical limits.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| I do empathise, but only because I remember how things were
| for me as a kid (just as FB was rising to prominence). My
| parents did not let me on the site until I was 13, but pretty
| much everyone else was there since at least the middle of
| primary school.
|
| I was really introverted and socially awkward at that age, so
| I found it difficult to be excluded in this way. When I did
| finally get access to social platforms in general, my social
| wellbeing was an order of magnitude better, started making
| more friends, not being left out of events because I didn't
| have an account (this happened even with some family as
| well). Until then I would never hear about things until right
| before they were happening, and people asked if I was going.
|
| So while FB is an overgrown monster today, it's far more than
| large marketing departments gone mad. There is a real social
| cost to not being on these platforms.
|
| (Also, good on you for not giving in. Because regardless of
| how I felt at the time, I'm glad my parents did force me to
| wait. It's probably not healthy to plug children into
| gigantic ML manipulation engines.)
| travisporter wrote:
| For every one of you, I bet there are there ten others
| (myself included) who would hear about parties, see other
| friends make plans with each other, and realize where they
| stood on the social order. Maybe I am a half decade older
| than you (FB started when I was in college) but the day I
| got off of it, my close friends got closer and my FB
| friends lost all of their allocated memory
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| This wasn't a case of being ignorant of the social
| hierarchy. It was about technology being able to pull me
| out of my introverted shell. Things got much better as I
| grew up.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| What do you think is a bigger problem for your children,
| Instagram or the fact that they have a parent who becomes
| absolutely furious in reaction to a pretty harmless Internet
| comment, using language like "I worry myself sick and drive
| myself to exhaustion" and "make my kids rebel against my
| wishes"?
|
| I used the Internet however I pleased when I was a kid and I
| turned out fine. Maybe you should just let your kids use the
| Internet however they please rather than trying to control
| it.
| hnbad wrote:
| It's infuriating when the argument is that "cancelling" this
| app would infringe on children's (and parents'?) rights while
| also the proposed alternative implicitly boils down to
| invading your child's privacy via surveillance software.
|
| So if your child ends up on Instagram Kids to their detriment
| it's because you failed as a parent but to take measures to
| actively prevent that you need to also fail. And this for an
| issue that doesn't even have to exist and we (well,
| Zuckerberg) can just decide not to create.
| keepper wrote:
| "Commercial free childhood"
|
| Every comment here seems to be around social medial. That doesn't
| seem to be their ploy. They object to commercials.
|
| Did everyone else here have a different childhood? I'm 40+ and
| i've been bombarded by commercials since I can remember. How is
| Facebook the biggest offender and not
|
| - Video Shows (TV/Streaming/Insert anything that needs
| sponsorship)
|
| - Any Visual media
|
| - Food
|
| - Toys
|
| - insert anything that is sold.
|
| I'm not seeing anything here except go after "big target we don't
| like based on things we think are right" were all of these are
| very subjective...
|
| For X sake... the US has an obesity crisis, and we are worrying
| about screen time?...
| foobiter wrote:
| we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time
| websites2323 wrote:
| Because Facebook, along with Google, are modern day Robber
| Barons of Surveillance Capitalism. They monitor behavior and
| use that information to target ads.
|
| Sure, cereal companies know that big boxes with cute characters
| at kid-height sells sugar pops. But Facebook knows every like,
| every friend request, every post, every message... check-ins at
| businesses. They combine the social anxiety of adolescence with
| advertising. It's sick. Adults are easily manipulated. Children
| even more so.
|
| And when you bring up those other advertisement pathways:
| they're manipulative too!
| root_axis wrote:
| It seems odd to me that the same thing we regard as inherently
| harmful to children is simultaneously regarded as a necessary
| human right for adults.
| adam wrote:
| I'm reminded of this article from 2011 about Silicon Valley
| executives who send their kids to their local Waldorf
| School...Where tech is forbidden.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-sch...
| aiisahik wrote:
| This is written by some out of touch people. Sooner or later
| children (along with adults) are going to live most of their
| social lives in some non-physical form. Doesn't matter of it's on
| a computer, phone or VR, wearable or something else we haven't
| come up with yet. It might be instagram or snap or tiktok or
| something else. What it DEFINITELY will not be is the physical
| world. You lost that fight already. Maybe some rich parents will
| be able to spend a huge amount of money to craft a childhood that
| is physical first but for the majority of children, that will be
| out of reach.
|
| And rightly so - children are just mimicking what the adults
| around them are doing. The parents are socializing, working and
| finding dates on their phones. It's just a better and more
| efficient way or doing something. When those children grow up
| they will have to navigate that same world. Is it a better
| experience overall? Probably not. Will killing instagram for
| children make a difference in the long term? No way.
|
| What a waste of (digital) paper this pdf is.
| websites2323 wrote:
| Does that mean we are required to cede that experience to an
| exploitative megacorp?
| matz1 wrote:
| Exactly, social media has become important part of modern
| world, It has it good and bad. It important not to completely
| detach them from social media but rather teach them how to
| deal/manage social media, especially from early age.
|
| When they grow up they will have to deal with this, teaching
| them the skill on how to navigate social media will be
| beneficial.
| sweetheart wrote:
| Did you see all the signatories? They seem to be wildly in-
| touch with the subject. You think all those experts in the
| field are misled?
| cies wrote:
| > commercialfreechildhood.org
|
| commercialfreelife@localhost :)
|
| Now lets get rid of all ads in public spaces.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| Why would Instagram be appealing to children?
|
| Instagram is mostly used by young adults trying to build their
| social status through a curated (manipulated) image of their
| lives.
|
| I don't see how it would appeal to children.
| Rendello wrote:
| Children like emulating adults and "older kids"
| sodality2 wrote:
| It's popular. If everyone else has it, that means you are
| missing out if you don't. As a child, saying "No sorry, I'm not
| on instagram" means they're a social outcast in their heads. Of
| course, no one actually cares, but social interactions matter a
| lot at that age.
|
| Edit to add: A lot of teachers are also trying to be hip and
| cool. Three times in the past year I have been assigned
| "tiktok" assignments where I either had to record a tiktok or
| watch a tiktok. Of course there were other options that I took,
| but if some kid doesn't have it simply because they don't care,
| not out of privacy reasons, they'd probably download and start
| using it regularly after thinking a grade rides on it.
|
| That's another thing: I am 100% serious when I say that my
| peers are addicted to tiktok. I know people who regularly spend
| 6+ hours a day just scrolling through it. In fact, I don't know
| anyone who doesn't spend at least 2 hours daily on it. I don't
| think any other social media comes close to it in
| addictiveness. It is literally almost everyone I know, even
| tangentially.
| SllX wrote:
| A few years ago, I heard a couple of kids on the bus singing
| songs about how they're going to be big on Instagram. It stuck
| with me as one of those things about how kids observe the world
| versus how I observed it as a kid.
|
| So to answer your question, I don't know how it would be
| appealing, but I think they find it appealing anyway
| independent of whether we know why, so it's probably worth
| revisiting your priors.
| markpeppers wrote:
| I could be wrong, but I think a "whoosh" applies here.
| acheron wrote:
| Did you hear something? It sounded like a cash register opening
| and closing. Kinda like "ch-ching, ch-ching".
|
| No, no - I heard more like a slot machine jackpot. Sorta "Ding-a-
| ding, ling-ling-dong-ding-ding."
|
| https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/06/16
| throwaway12g72 wrote:
| What about Tiktok?
| Bombthecat wrote:
| Yeah, thought the same, this train left already the station.
| raoa wrote:
| Schools have no business giving instruction on modern web
| literacy given that doing so correctly requires cultivating in
| kids an inflexibly adversarial mindset towards all the services
| they will use.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| There is no incentive for Zuckerberg to ever stop it. Plus, there
| is no realistic way for Instagram to really check for age. Unless
| they start asking for a government ID,which might drive more
| people off their platform as they look for anonymity on social
| media.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Unless they start asking for a government ID,
|
| Instagram started asking some accounts for ID 8 months ago.
|
| https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-n...
|
| Facebook has asked for ID for years now.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| Don't they already do this if they don't think your profile
| looks legit?
| monkeynotes wrote:
| If FB reassures the new IG-K is safe for kids, then many
| parents are probably going to trust that this is true. Now
| their kids will be subject to all the puke that is on
| Instagram, pedos will target it for grooming since the audience
| is specifically children. Kids will be subject to all the
| monetization efforts FB can throw at them. I imagine kids would
| also stress about competing with their friend's popularity and
| all of the other ugly shit grown ups subject themselves to when
| they obsess over IG.
| stelonix wrote:
| Dunno how it works in the US, but in Brazil there are plenty
| of "influencer" children accounts on IG and they already are
| dealing with IG obsession and whatnot. Knowing that, I figure
| IG is trying to isolate kids in a sub-site.
| klyrs wrote:
| Does that address the problem, or merely change the window
| dressing?
| lm28469 wrote:
| Youtube started asking me for my passport and/or credit card to
| confirm my age 2 weeks ago for any age restricted videos, it's
| definitely doable
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Mind if I ask where are you based?
| lm28469 wrote:
| Germany
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Thanks!
| [deleted]
| nicklecompte wrote:
| I think you misunderstood the letter: they aren't complaining
| about Instagram specifically, they are complaining about a
| proposed version of Instagram designed for kids under 13. So
| your comment seems basically irrelevant to the matter - they
| aren't asking him to change Instagram, they are asking him to
| cancel a product that hasn't been launched yet.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| I think the comment you are responding to is addressing use
| of normal Instagram by kids under 13, which is something the
| letter also discusses.
| [deleted]
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| Good luck. FB and Zuckerberg care about nothing other than
| profit. Eg. check the privacy notices in ios.
| syrrim wrote:
| I am deeply uncomfortable with the implicit premise that children
| are so different from adults that they should be totally
| segregated from adults in padded rooms, and furthermore that this
| is so important that even their parents shouldn't be able to
| override this concern. In order to make a platform that avoids
| COPPA, facebook will need to ask for the parents consent. As part
| of this, they will likely give the parents some degree of insight
| and control over how their children are interacting with the
| platform. In my view, this makes nearly any negative part of the
| platform permissible. Children are expected to develop into
| adults; the only way this can happen is if we allow them to be
| exposed to the world of adults. Different parents will be
| comfortable giving their children different breadth in this
| regard. I really don't think one parent should be dictating to
| another how to raise their children. By construction, instagram
| for children will allow the signatory parents to totally opt-out.
| That ought to be sufficient.
| saos wrote:
| What what?
| [deleted]
| dheera wrote:
| Also Zuckerberg can you please disable geotags for ecological
| reserves?
| stunt wrote:
| Thanks god I work from home now and I don't have to see half of
| the train purposelessly scrolling through Instagram.
| blackoil wrote:
| Why aren't parent ready to take responsibility? I have small kids
| and nephews, none of them get/will get smartphone till 13-15.
| Laptop, the 8 year old uses has a whitelist of apps/sites. If
| they need anything from Youtube, I'll download it and they play
| on VLC. Why should Zuckerbergs of the world be able to enter
| their world without supervision?
| vletal wrote:
| FOMO? Potential social isolation?
|
| I have just a 2yo and a t-6m so I do not have to worry about
| these things. Yet the way you handle it sounds a bit too
| strict. You sure that maybe strict limits on screen time and
| YouTube together with speaking about what they consume would
| not teach them more?
| whitepaint wrote:
| Everyone's insane so I must be as well. Come on man. I
| totally agree with the OP, take personal responsibility. You
| raise your children not Zuck.
|
| Louis CK had great comments about this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c
| vletal wrote:
| I was actually asking an honest question. I do not think
| I'm giving up on my responsibilities. It's just that does
| serving as a proxy to YouTube really help better than some
| reasonable weekly limit?
| throwawaymrmr wrote:
| As somebody who was raised similarly to the OP's "sane"
| way, I would certainly prefer being "insane" to the social
| isolation I ended up in. Of course, there were countless
| other factors that made me who I am, but this is still
| something to consider.
| philistine wrote:
| I would refrain from using Louis CK as any sort of a moral
| compass. For obvious reasons.
| po1nter wrote:
| Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
| Karsteski wrote:
| So should a person's mistakes be held against them for
| the rest of their life? Especially given what he did,
| which seemed very mild compared to the reaction.
| boringg wrote:
| I think OPs comment is accurate. He does lose his ability
| to be used as a moral compass. He might still be funny
| and have interesting insights but he is not a moral
| compass.
| Karsteski wrote:
| Hmm I heavily disagree. I think that just because someone
| did something fucked up in the past doesn't mean they can
| no longer be trusted or their moral compass/judgement is
| somehow permanently broken.
|
| Perhaps this is the case for me because what he did
| wasn't really messed up from what I know about the story,
| just weird.
|
| I will concede that in some situations, and from my
| perspective these would almost entire involve sexual
| assault, I'd consider a person unredeemable.
| boringg wrote:
| In a situation where someone has indeed done some fucked
| up stuff - they need to prove that their moral compass
| has been fixed in order for them to be trusted again. I
| don't think you get a pass because you've been quiet for
| a couple years. So I disagree with you.
|
| You should probably go read up on what he did - pretty
| messed up power dynamics.
| (https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/what-about-the-careers-
| of-lou...)
| Karsteski wrote:
| Sigh, idk how far I want to go with this but I'll ask
| this: How is this an abuse of power dynamics? To me, if
| someone asked me "Can I masturbate in front of you?",
| them being the CEO of my company wouldn't pressure me to
| comply because I'd be afraid of what people said, or what
| have you.
|
| Even this article just brushes past the fact that he
| _did_ ask. Now, I do think what he did was weird and
| creepy, but I try not to judge people too much on what
| they get off to.
|
| Lastly, this article just seems written to be purposely
| inflammatory and is missing quite a lot of context...
|
| "C.K. didn't just subject these women to sexual
| harassment and the personal struggles that come with
| that, he subjected them to threats from strangers, to
| alienation from their colleagues and peers, to lost
| professional opportunities. "
|
| Really? He purposely subjected them to threats and
| alienation? If anything, the colleagues and peers are
| pieces of shit, which has nothing to do with Louis C.K.
| foobiter wrote:
| you think serially ejaculating in front of people without
| consent is mild? are you serious?
| whitepaint wrote:
| He's arguably the greatest comedian of all time. I think
| there's definitely a thing or two to extract from his
| wisdom.
| tryonenow wrote:
| The fact that someone acted immorally in one way does not
| imply that they are incapable of giving any moral advice.
| By your logic no human being can be trusted as a "moral
| compass". Just another problem with modern cancel culture
| - consistently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
| kube-system wrote:
| An individual's personal responsibility only goes so far to
| shape the social norms that your kid will be exposed to. If
| the thing you don't want your kid doing becomes a norm,
| then abstaining may come with additional consequences of
| sizable consequence.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Society is made of individuals. Leave the decision to an
| individual and the equilibrium of right will be reached
| quicker. We don't need one huge entity to tell us what's
| wrong or right. We don't need governments to babysit us.
|
| Let's use an example. Let's say now the norm becomes to
| allow kids to drink alcohol and smoke weed. Would you
| allow your kids to do it? Same principles, in my opinion,
| stand with Instagram or any other tool / toy / gadget.
| elliekelly wrote:
| It's not that easy or simple. Not by a long shot. You
| might find Eleanor Ostrom's 1990 "Governing the
| Commons"[1] interesting - it details exactly how
| individuals can work together to reach "equilibrium" and
| it doesn't involve governments _or_ selfish (in the
| economics sense) individuals. She won a Nobel Memorial
| Prize in Economics for the book and her subsequent
| related work. The title of course is a play on the title
| of the classic "Tragedy of the Commons" article
| advocating for privatization over centralized government
| oversight. I won't spoil the book but she addresses the
| "privatize the commons" approach as well. Her conclusions
| might surprise you.
|
| [1]https://archive.org/details/governingthecommons
| vletal wrote:
| You sure that your "we do not need governments to babysit
| us" ideology goes well with the rest of the tread you
| seemingly agree with?
| evanlivingston wrote:
| You seen the pollution people create left to their own
| free will?
| kube-system wrote:
| A lot of parents do give some leeway in letting their
| kids get away with those things in order to let them fit
| in. Mostly, the reason kids don't do those things more is
| _exactly because_ we had the government ban those things
| for kids.
|
| But, alas, Instagram is not a regulated drug, and I see
| little reason why most parents' reactions wouldn't be
| more similar to those they have for video games or
| watching movies than it would be to the use of an illegal
| drug.
|
| A more apt comparison might be a parent who doesn't let
| their kid go to the movies or play video games with their
| friends.
| whitepaint wrote:
| > Mostly, the reason kids don't do those things more is
| exactly because we had the government ban those things
| for kids.
|
| I completely disagree. We don't allow those things
| because we know kids shouldn't be doing it. If there were
| no drinking age laws kids would still not be drinking and
| smoking weed because parents wouldn't allow it. That was
| kinda my point. (let's not talk about the outliers,
| obviously some kids smoke and drink)
| kube-system wrote:
| I'm not sure that underage drinking is an outlier, at
| least here in the US. In fact, the _majority_ of college
| students in the US violate drinking age laws.
|
| https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-
| fact-sh...
|
| > If there were no drinking age laws kids would still not
| be drinking and smoking weed because parents wouldn't
| allow it.
|
| In places with more relaxed drinking laws, we _do_ often
| see more kids drinking. 42% of 15 year old boys were
| weekly drinkers in the UK in 2002.
|
| https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/3828
| 40/...
|
| > Most young people begin using alcohol between the ages
| of 12 and 16, an age at which they gain increasing
| independence and spend more time outside the home
| unsupervised. At the same time, the direct influence of
| parents diminishes and friends become increasingly
| important.
| mathattack wrote:
| Yes, parents should make sure their kids don't drink or smoke.
|
| Also Yes, it should be illegal to sell them cigarettes and
| beer.
| RHSman2 wrote:
| This
| Sharlin wrote:
| There are millions of parents, while there is only one Mark
| Zuckerberg. There's no such thing as parents collectively
| deciding to take responsibility, and it's unfair to the
| children to just expect them to have good parents. It's a
| classic case of a coordination problem.
| jldugger wrote:
| So if we break up facebook, there is no hope?
| samcal wrote:
| What? It's not that there's just one Zuck, it's that there
| are fewer Zucks than parents. The strategy would be the
| same if there were 5 Facebooks competing for market share.
| [deleted]
| noxer wrote:
| >and it's unfair to the children to just expect them to have
| good parents.
|
| Also unfair because some parents are not rich. Some aren't
| living in the right place. Some are not highly intelligent.
| Some are not woke enough. Indeed very very unfair.
|
| Lets hand over the responsibility to companies or to the
| state. Communistic coordinated child parenting probably isn't
| gonna make it better for the children but at least its fair.
| tharne wrote:
| I think you identified the next great charity, "The
| foundation for the forgotten children of unwoke parents".
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| Handing over control to the state? Communism? What are you
| talking about? I'm worried there may be a CO2 build up in
| your bunker.
| dTal wrote:
| Could you clarify your point? It's hard to tell what it is.
| kolbe wrote:
| I'm pretty tech literate, and I have no clue how to get a
| whitelist-only OS. I don't think it's fair to make every
| American understand this in order to protect their children
| from predatory companies.
| bigbob2 wrote:
| My parents often worked 70+ hour weeks just to keep a roof over
| my head. If they tried to find the time to restrict content
| from me in the manner you suggest, I may have never become a
| developer. Every situation is different, so I don't think you
| should assume your solution is one size fits all.
| iforgetti wrote:
| Imagine if cigarettes were legal for all ages. It might fair to
| call on both cigarette companies to stop selling to children
| and also to call on parents to prevent their kids from smoking.
| tharne wrote:
| You're asking parents why they might have trouble competing for
| their children's attention vs. a company with essentially
| unlimited money and some of the best programmers and marketers
| in the world? I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic.
|
| By the way, I can almost guarantee you that your kids will find
| a way to get themselves smartphones before you officially allow
| it. Kids are resourceful, and there's nothing as tempting as
| something their parents tell them they can't have.
| lhorie wrote:
| Why is the assumption that it's an either-or thing? We can have
| responsible parents AND people being outraged at zuck's
| moneygrab-at-the-expense-of-children move.
|
| With this said, I don't exactly understand how an instagram for
| children can possibly hope to NOT run afoul of COPPA. All it
| takes is one child uploading a single photo of themselves or
| their siblings, or referring to a friend by name in a comment,
| or heck even just using their real name in their username...
| Waterluvian wrote:
| The ability to more intelligently control access to sites/apps
| WITHOUT requiring technical competence is critical.
|
| I think Apple and Android offer some fairly powerful tools to
| manage these things? But I've found that routers, even in 2021,
| are just trash garbage at offering these kinds of powers.
| syops wrote:
| What kind of society do you want to live in? One where
| children's attention can be exploited at the whim of
| corporations because they happen to have parents that aren't
| vigilant enough? Shouldn't society in the form of it's
| government look out for the best interests of its most
| vulnerable citizens? There are lots of parents who suck and
| aren't ready/able to take responsibility as you put it.
| Shouldn't we as a whole at least makes some effort to look out
| for those children born to irresponsible parents?
| thesausageking wrote:
| Your kids maybe too young to have experienced it, but at some
| age social media takes over. Even if you put your foot down and
| don't let your kid have an account or a phone, their friends
| will post photos of them and tease them. And kids can be really
| cruel.
|
| Given Facebook has a monopoly in social networks, it's entirely
| reasonable to hold them to a higher standard and question the
| impact of new products which use their monopoly power to
| launch.
| phku wrote:
| 100% agree. When they're really young it's almost trivial to
| control their online habits. But they definitely hit an "age"
| where peer pressure and the want to fit-in becomes the all
| consuming incentive to be part of these social media
| networks. We'd managed to avoid the whole cell phone thing
| until our son was 13, which was some kind of miracle since
| I've been seeing cell phones on kids desks as young as 1st
| grade for years now.
|
| It's definitely an easier said than done scenario.
| Angostura wrote:
| This is absolutely fine. Until you realise that your kids are
| absolutely miserable because all of their friend groups are
| arranging to meet in the park or whatever via WhatsApp.
|
| You'll get really sick of downloading every. Single. Minecraft
| redstone tutorial for them.
| ryandrake wrote:
| If their "friends" are arranging play through some medium
| that they know the kid doesn't have access too, I have some
| bad news for the kid: They're probably not his friends. My
| friends know that I'm not on Facebook, and they know to
| contact me over E-mail when we're getting together.
|
| EDIT: Wow, how is this so unpopular? Do your friends
| regularly make plans together without you?
| onion2k wrote:
| "They're probably not his friends." is right. The problem
| is that being "the weird kid who's strict parents won't let
| him have a phone" could mean he won't have any real
| friends. Kids can be harsh, and being different to everyone
| else doesn't help.
|
| _Maybe_ he 'll have friends who'll put the additional
| effort in to copy him in on email or phone the home land-
| line. But maybe he won't. Seems a big risk to take.
| dTal wrote:
| You're asking a lot of immature, status-obsessed humans to
| go out of their way to accommodate someone. They might not
| even be "friends" yet, just social groups that one might
| like to be a part of. How are you meant to _make_ friends
| if you can 't participate in popular bonding exercises in
| the first place? WhatsApp groups are social venues in their
| own right.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Must've been a while since being a child, huh? I mean, I
| get where you're coming from, but your ideological stance
| not gonna help your child at all.
|
| As opposed to the stance (admittedly also ideological, but
| I agree with this one) that facebook and all its
| subsidiaries should gtfo children's lives.
| ryandrake wrote:
| We agree that social media should GTFO of children's
| lives at least! I'm just responding to the parent who
| said the kid's "friend groups are arranging to meet in
| the park or whatever via WhatsApp". If they are arranging
| these things and leaving the kid out, that doesn't sound
| like very friendly behavior to me.
|
| Back when I was a kid and dinosaurs roamed the earth, we
| made after-school plans in 4th period math, because we
| were all in the same class. If my friends suddenly
| started making plans in a class where they knew I wasn't
| present, I'd start questioning whether they were really
| friends.
| danbolt wrote:
| I think for a lot of our communications, elements of 4th
| period math have now moved to a group chat.
| lthornberry wrote:
| The social norm these days is really different. It's not
| about your friends suddenly starting a new, exclusive
| behavior; its about a slow migration of the people in
| your social world to a tech platform you don't have
| access to. And kids do get left out because of this--not
| for nefarious reasons, but because they're just not going
| to be in the loop for a significant part of the social
| interactions that are taking place.
| jka wrote:
| It's almost as if there's a pattern in the way that
| social networks grow, attract users (perhaps identifying
| people who are likely to draw other users on-board), and
| then atrophy after being seen as 'outdated' -- usually
| around the same time that a new platform happens to be
| appearing.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Thanks. I suppose maybe I'm just getting elderly and out
| of touch. Gotta be open to that possibility. I know kids
| can be cruel but wow. Even if not nefarious, it's
| callous. In my day you were excluded because you were
| weird, now it's because you aren't hooked to a particular
| corporate-mediated communication medium. Sometimes I
| think we deserve the mild dystopia we have built for
| ourselves!
| jka wrote:
| This is kind-of a meta comment, but I expect that the
| platforms would actually benefit from this kind of
| defeatism in older generations, so I'd encourage you not
| to concede to it.
|
| Yes, platforms can influence social interaction a lot -
| but ultimately, regardless of age, we're all still human.
|
| I think most people learn to understand what's fair and
| unfair in terms of inclusivity, even if it takes longer
| in some situations. We'll figure out better solutions.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Do you really not remember being a kid? What your parents
| allow you to do, have, how they present you all has a
| very significant influence on how other kids perceive you
| and whether you will be accepted as a friend.
|
| Being a kid without friends because your parents sucked
| at teaching you how to integrate into society, is very
| very hard. And allowing your children to be part of other
| children's social lives, that matters. Even if that means
| joining shitty social networks.
|
| Does that situation suck, yes. But don't put this on the
| kids. Please don't make children suffer because of your
| views on an idealistic society.
| pimlottc wrote:
| Seems to me that petitioning Facebook about this is a way of
| parents taking responsibility for making a better world for
| their kids.
| paulcole wrote:
| > none of them get/will get smartphone till 13-15
|
| I had technophobe parents like this. When other kids got
| technology I had to do without to build character or whatever.
|
| Lesson I learned is that adults are mostly pretty dumb and
| stubborn. Haven't seen 'em in 15 years.
| criddell wrote:
| A cell phone was basically considered a required item like
| binders and pens at my kids' school. Rather than ban them, they
| try to encourage appropriate use.
|
| For example, they encourage the use of the calendar app for
| tracking assignments and test dates. They use the camera to
| capture information for homework. Kids have projects that
| sometimes involves recording audio or shooting video. There's
| also a twitter-like app that the teacher can use to broadcast
| to students and students can use to communicate with the
| teacher.
| mujina93 wrote:
| This is probably one of the few right approaches that can be
| realistically employed. Everything else is quite utopian and
| difficult to achieve, unfortunately.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| You seem like a very tech savvy and involved parent. Maybe
| having the time, energy, and education to be so savvy and
| involved is a privilege.
| dalbasal wrote:
| >> Why aren't parent ready to take responsibility?
|
| There are two ways to look at this, imo:
|
| (1) Individual parents. Absolutely agree. If you are one, do
| your research and limit internet use.
|
| (2) Societally... It's hard. Culture doesn't move as fast as
| tech does. If SV culture isn't totally caught up, where is the
| average culture? It's hard because "think totally
| independently" isn't how people work, at least not all the
| time. Especially when it comes to parenting, people rely on
| norms.
|
| Meanwhile, it's hard to control those little Bs.
| takeda wrote:
| Not all parents are users of HN, if anything, we are vast
| minority.
|
| While perhaps setting parental controls is trying to be simple
| and parents can get somebody's help with it, the second part
| like downloading video from youtube and playing it on VLC is
| way beyond most people. Especially that's not officially
| supported by YT.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| I believe the prevailing view is: instead of deleting Facebook
| and putting a white list on you home computer, it's way better
| for congress to enact massive federal legislation.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| They do, they vote for politicians to make laws to remove that
| threat to their childs well being permanently. Why is it fair
| to privatize the infinite work-load of thwarting attackers, but
| unfair to centralize the work-load of defence?
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Why aren't parent ready to take responsibility
|
| Yes, I mean parents should be responsible not to use leaded
| paint. And parents should be responsible for making sure they
| don't buy a crib that can suffocate their infant. And parents
| should be responsible for making sure pajamas are not going to
| catch on fire. And parents should be responsible for making
| sure that their kids avoid cigarette ads targeted to kids (like
| Joe Camel).
|
| With kids, if there is a certain threshold of danger from
| something, especially if it is being targeted to kids, I think
| society should regulate (see alcohol and tobacco). I think
| there is increasing evidence that certain types of social media
| are harmful to kids.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Indeed. It does seem like a defect in parenting. There is no
| conceivable reason why you can't forbid your kids from using
| these things (whether they disobey is another matter, but
| that's life and at least the law has been made known to said
| progeny; may the punishment begin!). If you can't do _that_ ,
| then frankly, you've got bigger issues as a parent than the
| inability to forbid the use of these services. Maybe start with
| those first.
| hnalien wrote:
| Peer pressure is real among kids aged 8-22 (yes, that's a huge
| range but that's what is). You can stop your kids all you want,
| but then they will find ways to experience what you have
| deprived them of, and that will be catastrophic for their
| development and relationships in general. I'd like some child
| growth specialist to chime in, but I believe this dynamic won't
| be good as parents are a safe haven for kids and if kids think
| parents are not letting them have something that all the other
| kids have, it might affect them longterm.
| rimliu wrote:
| Why not 18? You ate not helping anybody here, sorry.
| sweetheart wrote:
| There is an enormous difference between some parents going
| through the effort to healthily manage their kids' screen time,
| and making the societal default lower screen time for _all_
| kids. I could see the former just being incredibly alienating
| and depressing, as all the other kid's may have access to these
| things.
| patkai wrote:
| Everybody should take responsibility, parents first and also
| Zuckerberg.
| AnonHP wrote:
| > I have small kids and nephews, none of them get/will get
| smartphone till 13-15.
|
| During normal times, they'll just get it from their friends or
| schoolmates. Unless you can surveil the kids all the time, this
| method alone won't help.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Why aren 't parent ready to take responsibility?_
|
| Easy to say from an ivory tower.
|
| Not everyone is you. Some people have two jobs. Some people
| travel a lot. Some people have to take care of sick relatives.
| Some people have hard jobs that consume a lot of time. Some
| people are poor. Some people don't have great education. Some
| people are simply not capable of doing all the things that you
| do.
|
| It's very SV Bubble to make bad products available and then
| blame the parents when they damage their children. That's not
| how a civilized society works. It's why we have a Consumer
| Products Safety Commission.
|
| Why can Facebook just do the right thing and not target
| children? Why is Facebook making money more important than
| everything else in the world?
| ryandrake wrote:
| As a parent, I know I signed up for this. I need to tell her
| "no" many times a day, every day, for things she really wants
| to do. That's part of being a parent. I need to suck it up and
| be a parent.
|
| That said, I don't appreciate that there are people out there
| like Zucc, who are making it their business to create even more
| things I have to say no to, and specifically targeting them at
| kids. Just like those people out there making kids games that
| are essentially casino gambling, but just barely on the safe
| side of the legal line. Thanks, a lot assholes, for adding no
| value to the world and giving me yet another thing to forbid my
| kid from doing.
| jgon wrote:
| I feel this deeply, especially the final paragraph. Feels
| really depressing sometimes to think how much of what we
| define as "value" can seem essentially predatory.
| why_Mr_Anderson wrote:
| Great way to make the life of your kids absolute hell at
| school. I feel sorry for them, being isolated from other kids
| because your parents are crazy is horrible.
| vletal wrote:
| How did they come up with 13yo as the minimal age btw. Is it
| set globally? I feel like it's itself too low.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| 13 is the minimum age you can get some sort of consent to log
| data and interact with someone in the US (with parents
| permission I think?) or something like that
| vletal wrote:
| Ah. Ok. Here in Czechia we get partial responsibility at
| the age of 15...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I agree it's too low, but any higher age would be "bad for
| business"
| underdown wrote:
| In the US it's defined by COPPA. Children's online privacy &
| protection act
| [deleted]
| logicalmind wrote:
| I used to think this way. I have 3 kids, the oldest of which is
| now in her mid teens. Doing what you say is way harder than you
| think. Mostly because you have to control not only your own
| children, but your children's friends as well.
|
| For example, my kids did not get phones. But all of their
| friends had them. Which meant my kids would just create
| accounts for these services on their friends phones and just
| post whatever they wanted without me being able to control it.
|
| A second example is when their friends get new phones. Guess
| what they do with the old phone? They give it other kids who
| don't have them. Sure, they don't have a cell plan. But that
| doesn't stop them from using wifi at starbucks or any other
| place.
| brightball wrote:
| While I agree with you completely, I imagine there are a number
| of parents not savvy enough to know how to lock these things
| down.
|
| I tell parents about the reasons to avoid this stuff all the
| time and many of them are so exhausted it's more of a
| "whatever, they will be fine" type of response (more politely
| of course, but that's the gist of it).
|
| I feel it now too. My kids are in middle school and all their
| friends are getting phones. All I hear about is "Everybody else
| can do X! We're the only ones that can't."
|
| I let them have stretches of unlimited game access and when I
| saw what it was doing, took them away. After experiencing it,
| when I explained how the games work to make them addicted and
| the things that we saw changing in their behavior they
| understood and at least now they take a lot of what I say more
| seriously when I warn them. So that's a positive.
|
| I have backed off on some things due to the pandemic just to
| make it easier to play with their friends (Fortnite, Roblox,
| etc). Previously my generally rule was "no
| iPad/iPhone/Touchscreen games" but just about anything on the
| Switch/Xbox was fine. I find that games that you purchase vs
| games that are free don't have anywhere close to the same tilt
| toward addiction, ad feeds, timed rewards, etc. I also don't
| see the negative behaviors that came from these either.
|
| Over time, their friends parents seem to be going the other
| direction and getting more strict with the electronics, so I'm
| hearing less "why can't we" and more "he can't play anymore
| today".
|
| Social stuff though...zero chance. None. It's a disease.
| philistine wrote:
| Let me say I don't have children of my own, and I want to
| send you positive vibes and encouragement. Stay attentive and
| positive with your kids, and I hope we can stop the
| monopolists from monetizing our children.
| brightball wrote:
| Thank you
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| > a number of parents not savvy enough
|
| This is an important factor that extends into all aspects of
| tech that I've worked around. Us tech savvy people take a
| staggering amount of knowledge for granted, I think -
| partially due to how technical knowledge can compound and
| transfer so well.
|
| People use the term whitelist - why not supervise kids with a
| whitelist? I understand that idea (I've written the behaviour
| into software), and I'd even seek it out if I wanted to
| protect my kids. But to some people, this concept won't make
| sense at all. They'll ask things like "Why does the phone
| know what my kid can see?" or "How can the phone know what
| each app/website is?" - questions that almost make no sense
| if you know how these things work. But, that's the world we
| live in. I personally think it's my responsibility as someone
| privileged enough to be technical to help those who don't
| understand. Whether it's my kids or their grandma or the
| people I work with. Most people learn these concepts readily,
| but they have no idea where to start or what to look for to
| learn. It's not really their fault (not that you or anyone
| suggested it is).
|
| > games that you purchase vs games that are free don't have
| anywhere close to the same tilt toward addiction, ad feeds,
| timed rewards, etc
|
| Absolutely, it seems analogous to watching a movie vs
| watching T.V.
|
| > Social stuff though...zero chance. None. It's a disease.
|
| 100%
| biztos wrote:
| > a number of parents not savvy enough
|
| I'm sure this is probably a thing overall, but I also
| distinctly remember some extremely tech savvy friends,
| people making their livings in tech from the 90's, using
| iPhone with games and YouTube as an opium stick whenever
| their 7-10 year olds wouldn't sit still in public.
|
| They fought about it, so maybe it was a cultural thing, but
| it definitely wasn't because they didn't understand the
| mechanics of adtech.
|
| I also have super techno-illiterate friends whose teenage
| son spends maybe an hour a day online.
|
| I don't pretend to know the parenting solution but my
| anecdata suggests the tech-savvy parents are not
| automatically better at this than their less-teched
| counterparts.
| jka wrote:
| This is the nature of an addictive technology that has an
| influence on peer groups.
|
| If it's flashy, exciting, looks cool - other children are
| going to want to have the same thing too.
|
| In a situation like that, even if your own preference is
| to have a quiet, slow existence for your family -- and
| even if that's what other families want too -- the
| environment has been altered by this external factor.
|
| Adults aren't immune to these kind of peer effects
| either, to be honest - but it's particularly pathetic for
| multi-billion dollar companies to intentionally market
| towards children with the hope of holding on to their
| attention and customer data.
| brightball wrote:
| Oh, even as cautious as I am, letting a small child have
| a tablet for a few minutes so you can have a peaceful
| dinner conversation is absolutely a tradeoff I'd be
| willing to make now and then.
| boringg wrote:
| I don't know you start to mess with their dopamine loops
| at that point.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| If people are not tech-savy enough, that just means there are
| a number of products to be built (and should be built) to
| steam line it.
|
| I remember I had email way before my parents, and now they
| use email everyday. People can learn how to use technologies,
| they just need the right training and simple UIs.
|
| I feel for the parents that are not tech-savy, I do not feel
| for the parents that can see how social media is having
| negative effects of their children's brains.
| datavirtue wrote:
| " I imagine there are a number of parents not savvy enough to
| know how to lock these things down."
|
| I recently decided to start using Netgear's parental controls
| (after many years of ignoring it) on our wifi router and
| found that they discontinued it due to a lack of use.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Wondering why this shit community is down voting this
| comment. It is a relevent observation about an extremely
| common device and service related to the topic. Wtf
| nitrogen wrote:
| _discontinued it due to a lack of use._
|
| ...wait, how would they know it wasn 't being used, unless
| they were also spying on your router?
| sodality2 wrote:
| Spying has very negative connotations, it's just
| analytics on what features are enabled or possibly based
| on traffic of the parental control blocklists. Spying is
| a harsh term to use. More like snooping
| reaperducer wrote:
| We put snoopers in jail.
|
| "I wasn't looking in your child's bedroom window for bad
| reasons. I was just gathering telemetry and analytics."
| simplerman wrote:
| > All I hear about is "Everybody else can do X! We're the
| only ones that can't."
|
| This is the main issue. If they don't participate in online
| communities where their friends are, they will have
| significant social disadvantage.
|
| As a grown up, I had quit Facebook for about a year, and I
| noticed my social life was declining slowly. Someone would
| forget to invite me to some event. Someone might be shocked
| that I didn't know so and had a baby. And I am sure people
| started to label me as weirdo for not having Facebook.
|
| Back to kids, yeah this is a social issue, not something that
| one can solve alone for just their family.
| lucasnortj wrote:
| get real, all he cares about is money. if you have any social
| media accounts you are a fool; delete them all now
| pjc50 wrote:
| .. how is the alleged instagram for children going to circumvent
| COPPA?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...
| harryh wrote:
| COPPA allows children until 13 to share personal info. They
| just need a parent's permission to do so.
| antattack wrote:
| On similar note, schools should not send kids to Youtube to
| complete their assignments.
| slver wrote:
| ... Why?
| tartoran wrote:
| Yes but YouTube is similarly such a good resource for learning
| that avoiding it does a disservice. I've seen the best
| explanations for topics that I struggled to understand at the
| time and they were explained so well that teachers should learn
| from it to.
|
| With YouTube the answer is moderation and it has to be taught
| by parents, by education institutions and so on. This is also
| valid for grown ups. One can look for information on YouTube
| but veer onto temptation's path and sink a lot of time that
| gets taken from something else. But a bit of meandering into
| wherever it takes us and in moderation is great for discovering
| new things.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Given a specific focus, you only need a few good videos from
| YT.
|
| For example, perhaps you are using Khan Academy with your
| kids. Then you augment it with one other lecture series.
| You're not going to augment that with yet another lecture
| series on the same subject, are you?
|
| Kids don't need access to the whole cultural tapestry that is
| YT, they only need guidance as to the highest quality
| resources.
| tartoran wrote:
| I agree, that is true. But I think kids should not be
| completely be shielded from that tapestry. They should know
| what crap is shouldn't they? There is time for kids to be
| gullible and learn to fend for themselves.
| supercanuck wrote:
| This is completely missing the point. The teacher is doing
| the moderation and curating a curriculum. Youtube is simply
| the medium by which they are sharing the video which contains
| the content.
|
| YouTube is the most convenient solution to upload because of
| he simplicity of uploading since it is integrated into pretty
| much every hardware device.
|
| This idea that parents now need to be moderating YouTube is
| asnine. Most are struggling to simply help their kids do
| their math homework and now we are going to require them to
| moderate google??
|
| Right now the tech companies have more information on what my
| kids are viewing than me, unless we want a world where
| parents are literally approving every single thing that
| reaches their eyeballs, let's hold the platforms a
| accountable for what they are serving up.
| terracatta wrote:
| Youtube is designed to extend engagement beyond the
| intended initial video the user wanted to view.
|
| Beyond a basic rating system with parental controls, the
| algorithm does not care if the videos are inappropriate for
| children. Given enough time with a child, the algorithm
| will lead them down a rabbit hole where they eventually
| reach strange videos portraying their favorite fictional
| characters in vaguely sexualized situations, or videos
| containing anti-science propaganda and/or promotion of
| harmful conspiracy theories.
|
| Allowing young children to use YouTube unsupervised is
| demonstrably a bad idea.
| supercanuck wrote:
| Take a step back and pretend you belong to society.
|
| Try explaining what you just explained to the average
| parent.
|
| You are also qualifying "Young" "children". Doesn't the
| definition of children mean young human, so what are you
| communicating here?
|
| in the real world, we have this thing where a teacher can
| upload an education video using two clicks of an iPhone
| and as you said, this uncorks pandora's box of goodies
| for kids.
|
| >Given enough time with a child, the algorithm will lead
| them down a rabbit hole where they eventually reach
| strange videos portraying their favorite fictional
| characters in vaguely sexualized situations, or videos
| containing anti-science propaganda and/or promotion of
| harmful conspiracy theories.
|
| What a fantastic addition to human society! Let's leave
| it to the parents to sort this shit out.
| rimliu wrote:
| And god forbid they will see some nipple.
| antattack wrote:
| Youtube business model is to make money of playing ads to
| it's viewers. Recent changes to Terms of Service allows
| Youtube to inject ads to content that has none.
|
| Before kids get to their assigned video they _have to_
| often watch an ad for a game or a service. Sometimes
| multiple ads play throughout.
|
| Also, at the end of the video kids get enticed to watch
| more videos that Youtube wants them to see (not the teacher
| or parent) - in order to play more ads.
| sneak wrote:
| Teachers can learn how to use youtube-dl.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Teachers should just roll their own video upload site.
| justaman wrote:
| Nearly every school (in the US anyway) has some sort of
| online portal that kids log into to complete or submit
| assignments that can be used to embed or host videos.
| mysterydip wrote:
| my daughter's (kindergarten) assignments are embedded
| youtube videos. There's also "suggested videos" after
| they play that can send her down a rabbit hole if we
| aren't watching (we have two toddlers as well so
| attention is divided).
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| YouTube used to have a configuration variable in the
| embedded player to disable these end of video
| suggestions. Then they chose to stop respecting the
| variable. Then they started flooding _all_ videos with
| ads.
| logifail wrote:
| > my daughter's (kindergarten) assignments are embedded
| youtube videos
|
| My _seven year old_ has Youtube blocked on the computer
| he uses, we saw too many rabbit holes so that was that.
|
| He wants content, he comes to me, I youtube-dl it, he has
| VLC
| mysterydip wrote:
| It's content from the school, on a tablet owned by the
| school that I have no administrative control of. Besides
| changing schools, I don't see many options.
| samb1729 wrote:
| This is such a HN comment
| bosswipe wrote:
| Yours is also a very HN comment these days.
| easton wrote:
| It's missing the obligatory "then throw it on a FTP
| server for the users to access, it's not that hard to
| secure".
| marcodiego wrote:
| Peertube, anyone?
| sneak wrote:
| These days we would throw it on a web server and provide
| the URL to the students.
|
| Expecting students to waste time sitting through Google
| ads and tracking at school is insane to me.
| cuspycode wrote:
| It's 2021. It's really not that hard to secure these
| days.
| logifail wrote:
| > YouTube is similarly such a good resource for learning
|
| Given the insistence on being "a platform not a publisher",
| isn't that a bit like claiming that "content written on paper
| is a good resource for learning"?
| pchristensen wrote:
| Only if there was one primary source for paper. No numbers,
| but it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube had orders of
| magnitude more video than all other video sites together.
| logifail wrote:
| > it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube had orders of
| magnitude more video than all other video sites together
|
| How about quality vs. quantity?
|
| If you wanted to recommend a video platform with video
| content _where all of it is suitable for under-18s_ would
| you really pick YouTube?
|
| (Full disclosure: I have three under-18 kids)
|
| I wouldn't pick YouTube. It's about signal-to-noise.
|
| Just an aside: a random video of some random person
| unwrapping something random _that happens to be
| fascinating to small kids_ ... keeping them glued to the
| screen, and quiet... is _not good content_
| tartoran wrote:
| Im not saying the quality ratio is higher on youtube,
| there's a lot more garbage for sure. But it has become a
| central hub in a way, you search for something and it's
| likely you'll find it. Second, the content creator niche
| has grown and went up a notch. There are a lot of self
| made great and professionally made channels on youtube.
| Im sure there are a lot more fantastic educational
| resources outside youtube but youtube is pretty good if
| you know what you're looking for
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Sounds like a market opportunity for something like OCW but
| pre-college.
|
| Could even feature some YouTube content that's vetted by
| teachers, re-uploaded and properly monetized of course. Uploads
| being ultimately restricted to teachers holding credentials and
| peer-moderated.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Most of the time it's as a result of the kid getting to their
| class the first time, realizing the teacher is garbage, and
| realizing "oh I have to teach myself all this crap" as the load
| up videos from extremely talented indians about calculus...
| MattGrommes wrote:
| Everyone is a great parent until they have kids.
|
| That's one of my favorite phrases and it always comes to mind
| strongly when stories like this pop up on tech-heavy sites like
| HN.
| [deleted]
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Seems more like an issue for parents to manage.
|
| It's hard to control what teenagers do, but young children simply
| don't have the resources and opportunity to do things their
| parents don't permit them to do.
| tartoran wrote:
| Ok, but for the parents who are unable or who mismanage this,
| we all end up paying for this collectively as a society. No,
| things that harm people need to be kept a very close eye onto.
| Gambling is regulated to some extend and it still attracts the
| weak willed people but at least children are not allowed in.
| Instagram for kids is a similar thing, it captures all the
| attention of children for profit, it primes these kids to be
| superficial and instills a consumerist behavior creates only
| problems down the line, we can't ignore these things or we will
| live in a sicker society. It is never perfect but we should
| strive to at least head in that direction. This is my opinion
| at least.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| parents cannot fight multibillion dollar tech companies trying
| their damndest to get to their kids alone. it's a one-sided
| fight.
| variable11 wrote:
| Yes, parents getting destroyed by a criminally unbalanced
| system must somehow navigate evil patterns by multi-billion
| dollar criminal monopolies. What a genius insight, please blame
| more victims.
| staticassertion wrote:
| That doesn't seem true. What if this were drugs? "Just leave
| that to the parents, don't force people to stop selling to
| kids"?
|
| These days many kids have cell phones. For better or worse,
| that's what parents are doing. I don't know why, I'm not a
| parent and I don't know any children, but I know that as a
| young kid a cell phone allowed me to walk home alone or with
| another kid at an early age, so I can imagine justifications.
|
| Anyway, I don't see why this should be on parents to manage, or
| how that would be effective.
| logifail wrote:
| > These days many kids have cell phones. For better or worse,
| that's what parents are doing. I don't know why, I'm not a
| parent and I don't know any children, but I know that as a
| young kid a cell phone allowed me to walk home alone or with
| another kid at an early age, so I can imagine justifications.
|
| Our 11-year old travels to school on the train. Last week he
| set off to school on a day that (thanks to Covid19) he was
| supposed to be doing "home schooling" (there's a rather crazy
| timetable, he's got two [different!] days each week in
| school, three days at week home-schooling). So, we called him
| _on his cell phone_ : "get off the train as soon as you can,
| we'll come and pick you up, you need to get back home ASAP"
|
| In the good old days he'd have been blissfully unaware of
| his(our) mistake until arriving at school, at which point
| he'd have asked an adult for help, and would (probably) come
| home by himself.
|
| I'm not convinced that kids carrying cellphones around is a
| net benefit, but here we are...
| azinman2 wrote:
| Or poison, cigarettes, alcohol, porn, fast food...
|
| There are a host of things parents have the responsibility of
| shielding their kids from. Trying to cancel out harms in the
| world is futile.
| hnbad wrote:
| If poison, cigarettes, alcohol and porn were explicitly
| marketed towards children, you'd have a point there.
|
| Note that cigarettes and alcohol were both implicitly and
| explicitly marketed towards children in the past until
| governments stepped in and there have been steps to attempt
| to crack down on fast food.
|
| > Trying to cancel out harms in the world is futile.
|
| You missed the word "all" there but I don't see how that
| statement is relevant when discussing one specific _new_
| harm which we can literally cancel out before it sees the
| light of day.
| the-smug-one wrote:
| Are you going to be launching cigarettes for kids tomorrow?
| citruscomputing wrote:
| You mean like Juul?
| azinman2 wrote:
| I didn't realize this was a totally separate product. I'm
| mixed in that probably many kids are already using
| Instagram as is... I guess I go back to parent
| responsibility (although we probably all lose through the
| tragedy of the commons).
| LegitShady wrote:
| So that's a yes?
| foepys wrote:
| Cigarettes, alcohol, and porn is actually regulated. In the
| US alcohol is even so tightly regulated that they bind
| infrastructure budgets to the legal drinking age of 21.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's so highly regulated in some parts of the US that
| certain types of alcohol are sold exclusively by the
| government.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| Those are mostly examples of things that are _not_ the
| exclusive responsibility of parents. For example, selling
| alcohol to children (at least here in the UK) is a criminal
| offence, not something you can just say "well it's the
| parents' fault for not stopping them coming into my shop to
| buy". Pre-internet, that was even true of porn. They seem
| to support the opposite point than you make in your second
| paragraph.
| nemo44x wrote:
| A lot of people keep alcohol, poisons, guns, knives, etc
| in the house. It is the parents job to ensure their kids
| don't have access to these things. You're a bad parent if
| you don't prevent your kids from harming themselves.
| montecarl wrote:
| Seems much easier to control, influence, and parent your
| children than to make other people stop selling drugs. The
| USA has been losing a war on drugs for decades.
| celticninja wrote:
| Which means the people on drugs are winning.
| staticassertion wrote:
| But we're not talking about making something illegal, this
| is a plea to not create a service specifically for
| children.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You seriously think parents aren't trying to stop their
| kids from doing drugs too? No, they do both. What planet
| are you from?
| aftergibson wrote:
| Great, yet another communication channel kids need to be
| "parented" away from at the potential cost of social isolation.
| It must be wearying for parents.
|
| Kids are resilient, but I imagine many parents don't like the
| thought of their kid missing out on context/social interaction
| because the lazy-parents kids let them do whatever they want.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| > Kids are resilient, but I imagine many parents don't like
| the thought of their kid missing out on context/social
| interaction because the lazy-parents kids let them do
| whatever they want.
|
| (I mentioned what this was like for me growing up.)
|
| Would encourage people to share some alternative paths to not
| being excluded socially. There's always a way around these
| platforms, but as a shy kid I never would've found them
| without a bit of guidance.
| logifail wrote:
| > the lazy-parents kids let them do whatever they want
|
| One of the kids in our 11-year-old's class lost it in the
| class WhatsApp group last week, hurled any and all terms of
| abuse you can think of. So our 11-year-old left the group as
| did many of his friends, and that got reported to the school.
|
| Who thinks an 11 year old can understand that saying stuff
| online could potentially destroy your career several decades
| hence if someone made a screenshot?
|
| I'd happily enforce a minimum age 18 for use of social media.
| LegitShady wrote:
| > Seems more like an issue for parents to manage.
|
| No, if something is harmful and addictive it should be
| regulated, parents or not.
|
| Instagram should not be free to get away with addicting
| children to social media because some parents are not as
| attentive as they should be. Children should be legally
| protected from this predatory behaviour by tech ogilarchs
| looking to embed themselves into the behaviour of young
| children.
|
| Why not a kid's gambling site? I mean, it seems like an issue
| for parents to manage. Children don't have the resources so it
| shouldn't be regulated, right?
|
| It's predatory, and should be regulated, and heavily punished.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| You are making the bold assumption that all parents are
| knowledgeable enough or give a shit enough to keep their kids
| off of social media.
|
| The kids are ultimately the ones who suffer so why not just
| prevent the problem at the root cause by disallowing Instagram
| for kids.
| grawprog wrote:
| >Seems more like an issue for parents to manage.
|
| No, it seems like zuckerberg should justify why this needs to
| exist. There doesn't need to be an Instagram for children. What
| benefit to children get by having an Instagram. Why should this
| now be an issue for parents because zuck figured he could
| monetize children?
| aeternum wrote:
| Even he did add an age restriction, why wouldn't kids just
| put in a fake birthday?
| bko wrote:
| In a free society, you don't need to justify why something
| needs to exist.
| vletal wrote:
| "free" like in the "regulations are harmful" way?
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| "free" like not guilty until proven otherwise
| imbnwa wrote:
| That principle exists in a domain where you've already
| been alleged of wrongdoing established by a given set of
| laws, it just means the allegation isn't also the warrant
| for guilt, as in a witch trial. It wasn't meant to hand-
| waive away any kind of collective speculative concern
| hnbad wrote:
| The open letter cites plenty of sources explaining why
| the product would be harmful to children. Convictions are
| made on less evidence than this.
| vletal wrote:
| More of a "free" like in "you are free to behave
| immorally"
| mettamage wrote:
| There are so many things that need justification for safety
| reasons. All the 18+ stuff comes to mind, most notably slot
| machines.
|
| Even in a free society.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Eating disorders at even a younger age! Coming to a child
| near you.
| hk1337 wrote:
| That could go along the same line as "an issue for parents to
| manage". Facebook shouldn't be creating an "Instagram for
| children", it's up to the parents to manage and monitor their
| children's internet usage.
| logifail wrote:
| > it's up to the parents to manage and monitor their
| children's internet usage
|
| I'm happy to block/ban internet usage for my kids, can we
| presume you happy for those in power to legislate that no
| school can set kids any homework that requires the
| internet/youtube to complete?
| yeetman21 wrote:
| >justify why this needs to exist wtf justify why you need to
| exist. if people want something, others will provide it. if
| kids don't like it then they wont have it
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| And cigarette companies should be allowed to advertise to
| children.
|
| Free capitalism is sacred and parents are the only ones who
| should care about the wellbeing of their children. Society
| doesn't exist and no one is responsible for the wellbeing of
| anyone else beyond their own nuclear family.
| smithza wrote:
| We should compare and contrast to other engagement mediums
| designed for children; i.e. Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, PBS
| Kids, Amazon Fire Kid's edition, etc.
|
| For these, excepting PBS I think, _monetary motivation is the
| same_. More engagement equals more opportunity to show 'Baby
| Bottle Pop commercials'.
|
| One major difference is gov't _regulation over open airwaves_
| (in America at least). There is no regulation in the app
| /product domain. Amazon Fire and Instagram are bound to
| whatever company moderation policies are in place at Amazon and
| FB (and App store moderation at Apple/Google).
| m1117 wrote:
| It's the same if you ask "Please cancel kids being silly". Kids
| will always find bad things to do.
| jean_tta wrote:
| With this reasoning you would never forbid e.g. hard drugs for
| kids, or child labor. Kids will always bad things to do, after
| all.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-16 22:02 UTC)