CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Snap, Discord, and X testified at hearing on child safety.
See full article...
See full article...
Zuckerberg says sorry for Meta harming kids—but rejects payments to families
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
BobbyBobberson
Ars Scholae Palatinae
The parents failed their children.
GIving your children access to social media is worse than giving them access to hard drugs.
GIving your children access to social media is worse than giving them access to hard drugs.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
TBH, I'm tired of the pearl clutching, “think of the children” arguments. if, as a society, we can't handle social media, and parents feel they can’t monitor their children's internet activities, then ban children from social media. Let schools go back to using books, and limit children‘s use of the internet. Children can't imagine living without social media because they haven't lived without It. Maybe I'm the cranky old guy on the block but this stuff seems to cause more problems than it’s worth.
we also need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy. enough of people being treated like a product. Amazingly, advertisers made money before social media. Companies sold product without targeting ads. Unfortunately neither the Dems nor the other party formerly known as the GOP will allow that to happen.
sorry for the ramble
we also need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy. enough of people being treated like a product. Amazingly, advertisers made money before social media. Companies sold product without targeting ads. Unfortunately neither the Dems nor the other party formerly known as the GOP will allow that to happen.
sorry for the ramble
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Me: Points out how the facts are unfairly challeneged while the other side pushes feelings.
You: bring baseless attacks against the facts and then bring nothing but feelings to support your own claim.
Thanks for illustratihg my point.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
The Sheep Look Up
Ars Praetorian
I think it was Tom Segura who had a joke about this, talking about the horror we have at what prior generations did -- "You let your kids throw around lawn darts and run the streets unsupervised?! They could buy bullets and cigarettes?!?!" and the future version, "You let your children have unfiltered internet?! What the fuck is wrong with you!??"
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that there were an equal number of studies showing the opposite, do you understand what the correct course of action is when you're faced with conflicting evidence? It is not to hastily jump into the lawmaking process without knowing what is happening, but rather to gather more evidence until a clear picture emerges.
The rest of your comment rests on baseless speculation with no causal linkage, and generalized anecdotes.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I don't see how passing unconstitutional laws like KOSA is going to help anyone. Especially when Republicans have promised to use it against the LGBTQA community
They don't need to touch section 230 for CSAM content as it provides zero immunity from violations of federal law. If Twitter knew they had CSAM and did nothing, charge them with a crime.
Social media sites are the new video games, another boogeyman for grandstanding scum bags. It's been clear for along time all they want is to open the internet up to lawsuits by repealing section 230, they need cover cause they're to cowardly to admit it. Then any time someone says something they don't like platforms will nuke it to avoid costly litigation.
Social media isn't harmful in every case, they ignore that part, which is why parental involvement is a must. Blanket bans and age verification (struck down in every case so far) aren't the answer. If they ban teens from social media, those teens will find other places online and all the social ills will follow them.
They don't need to touch section 230 for CSAM content as it provides zero immunity from violations of federal law. If Twitter knew they had CSAM and did nothing, charge them with a crime.
Social media sites are the new video games, another boogeyman for grandstanding scum bags. It's been clear for along time all they want is to open the internet up to lawsuits by repealing section 230, they need cover cause they're to cowardly to admit it. Then any time someone says something they don't like platforms will nuke it to avoid costly litigation.
Social media isn't harmful in every case, they ignore that part, which is why parental involvement is a must. Blanket bans and age verification (struck down in every case so far) aren't the answer. If they ban teens from social media, those teens will find other places online and all the social ills will follow them.
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
I find it weird to try and blame a company for the behavior I allow in my own home/family. Parents need to be parents.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
"I want Section 230 repealed" = "I want the First Amendment repealed but am too chickenshit to say it openly"
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
It not quite that, it's more enabling a hecklers veto with the threat of lawsuits.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
If a right can't be exercised because of frauds with bankrupting sham lawsuits, does it exist in practice?
It's no less corrupt of a move than Texas's abortion-bounty laws.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Parents should take responsibility for their children. This isn't Social Media's fault, it's a bad parenting problem.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
Fuzzypiggy
Ars Scholae Palatinae
"I literally couldn't care less about you plebs stupid enough to click past the T&Cs without reading them. You morons agreed to me doing whatever the hell I want while you post your cat pics and aunty Doris' hysterectomy ops pics, so it's your tough shit if you don't like it! I got billions off you suckers, I'm alright thanks!" - Zuck and his ilk are thinking while sat there.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
A bit disingenuous me thinks.. we can step back generations and point out something that the others didn't have, yet that thing becomes ubiquitous in society and is just part of everyday life.
Generations of kids managed to get to adulthood without cars
Generations of kids managed to get to adulthood without television
Generations of kids managed to get to adulthood without video games
Generations of kids managed to get to adulthood without cell phones
and if you really want to get uncomfortable:
Generations of kids managed to get to adulthood without integration of race.
All these things at one time were considered "bad for X, bad for Y", and yet... here we are. Imagine what we'll think is bad next.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Parental controls and the word “no” have been a thing for many many years.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The constitution lists things the government cannot do. It is not and never has been a list of things that people are allowed to do. It doesn’t say I can breathe either, yet here I am.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
One challenge I propose is for the individuals who post the offending, victimizing content be held accountable. The complication with that is there would no longer be room for anonymity.
Can social media survive if everyone has to verified (for real, not just a credit card number)? Can such laws for posting online be enforced? Are the sites/platforms/apps the fixers to the victimizers? Should both be held accountable?
So many questions and I’m ignorant in regard to if the lawmakers are asking the right questions or tackling the issues at the root.
Can social media survive if everyone has to verified (for real, not just a credit card number)? Can such laws for posting online be enforced? Are the sites/platforms/apps the fixers to the victimizers? Should both be held accountable?
So many questions and I’m ignorant in regard to if the lawmakers are asking the right questions or tackling the issues at the root.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Scientists don’t know if social media causes harm, have been unable to find any evidence of that. So why are you so sure the platforms know.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18...-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/
I find it rather frustrating that Ars doesn’t lead with the science when politicians start grandstanding. It “feels” like social media is harmful.
But what truly causes harm is basing legislation on unfounded feelings instead of factual evidence.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
I would LOVE for Hawley to be this fiery against gun manufacturers... I'm sure he's just warming up for that... right?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
One thing I always keep in mind is how in the 19th century, when novels were still a fairly new concept, they were considered detrimental to young people. Look at the reasons for admission to a 19th century women's mental institution and "excessive novel reading" was sometimes among the reasons.
And, yeah, the modern idea of a novel isn't all that old and didn't really come into its own until around the 18th century and didn't become truly popular until the 19th century when cheap books were enabled by steam powered printing presses and automatic book binders.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Exactly, you see this same exact issue in schools. Parents are expecting every person and service around them to parent their kids.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
well at least there's a source this time. issue is the unsupervised usage of social media in children
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
You may be anonymous to other users, but you won't generally be fully anonymous - for example I don't know who you are, but Ars have an email address and IP address for you, which can be requested by the police which can then be used to reveal more info about you - only a small portion of users are going to go to the lengths required to stay truly anonymous.
It's also not like real name polices on sites have forced users to behave - just look at Facebook, and it also has the issue of unmasking people who may have good reasons to stay anonymous.
Forcing everyone to be verified wouldn't solve the problem, it would just open up even more problems - not everyone has forms of ID that would be accepted, nor would users want to sign up to sites - for example would you sign up to Ars if you needed to give Ars your passport or driving license? Also not like verfying users on registration would prove they were the ones using said account. And how long until sites start using id verification to track users, build profiles and sell the data - at the moment Google may be able to pool varies bits of data to build a profile on you, but it may not necessary be tied to your actual identity.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
These idiot senators would never be so brave and confrontational with the execs of gun manufacturers or the NRA.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It's an Ashley Belanger article.
Unlike other writers who have subject matter knowledge and integrity, Belanger does nothing but act as stenographer for the quotations of others; providing no facts or analysis of her own in her writings. Comstantly quoting liars but never once calling them out. Only informative by occasional coincidence, if she happens to pick someone who's actually an expert to quote.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
We get it, you delusionally want to make kids' mental health problems worse.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
idk what you mean, was the source bad or what, im actually confused
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
YourPedanticFather
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Calling Josh Hawley an ignorant fucking moron is a slap in the face to ignorant morons everywhere. This guy isn't fit to clean my toilet with his tongue, much less represent Missouri within the U.S. Senate.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I gave up Facebook in December 2018 because of how they materially helped get Trump elected, and Twitter in March 2019 when I realized it was making me depressed. I tried getting on Mastodon around the New Year last month and quit after a few weeks when I realized it was just a bunch of liberal people huffing their own farts.
Keep in mind, I'm extremely liberal myself and have voted Democratic in every election since 1996, but Mastodon was performance art levels of virtue signalling.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
did he let Josh Hawley know?
It’s a sad day when two clowns like suck (rhymes with ashole) and Hawley (rhymes with fascist shit head) dike it out in the national media at the expense of the show pony civtimes paraded before the senate the other day
It’s a sad day when two clowns like suck (rhymes with ashole) and Hawley (rhymes with fascist shit head) dike it out in the national media at the expense of the show pony civtimes paraded before the senate the other day
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Here ya go:
https://www.google.com/search?q=stu...MTO4AQPIAQD4AQHiAwQYACBB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
First hit:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dangers-of-social-media-for-youth
that has links to a bunch of studies that refute what you posted.
The only difference here is that you googled "studies that show social media is good for kids" and I googled "studies that show social media is bad for kids".
I'd posit that "social media" is too big an umbrella to just say good or bad. What is obvious to anyone that's paying attention is that our society is having a hard time with the incredible power of it to brainwash people. And the people in charge of these companies like Zuckerberg don't give a single iota about any of our kids. He just wants money.
They know it's bad for kids, they don't care.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I'm all for holding these executives accountable and maybe even levying hefty fines when necessary. However, it's absurd to think that these families deserve any sort of payment or compensation. These parents don't want to parent their children and give their child these devices with unrestricted access, they should not be surprised or hurt by the potential fallout of their bad decisions.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Unfortunately, the mechanics of politics means that a rational facts-based public hearing about a subject like this is nearly impossible. This is (look up German reference) "gefundeness fressen" for politicians trying to score points with the voter. Even the hypothetical "Ideal Tech CEO", in favor of any well-considered practical measures, wouldn't be able (/allowed) to emerge from this looking reasonable or cooperative. So although I have no sympathy for any of them, and agree that they probably do and care a lot less than they try to make us believe, a hearing like this almost makes me sympathise a bit more with them... That's the tragedy of some aspects of more direct/open/participative democracy like this.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)