Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

I don't work for Snap, but they do use some software I wrote, so I guess that's close enough.

I find all of these "social media is bad" articles (for kids or adults) basically boil down to: Let humans communicate freely, some of them will do bad things.

This presents a choice: Monitor everyone Orwell-style, or accept that the medium isn't going to be able to solve the problem. Even though we tolerate a lot more monitoring for kids than adults, I'm still pretty uncomfortable with the idea that technology platforms should be policing everyone's messages.

So I sleep just fine knowing that some kids (and adults) are going to have bad experiences. I send my kid to the playground knowing he could be hurt. I take him skiing. He just got his first motorcycle. We should not strive for a risk-free world, and I think efforts to make it risk-free are toxic.

View on HN

Pouring the resources of a company the size of Snap into addicting as many kids into their app as deeply as possible is not the same letting them communicate freely. Besides that, I don't know of any parent that would want ephemeral and private communication between their child and a predatory adult. Snap is also doing nothing to shield them from pedophiles, drug dealers, and arms dealers that are using the same app as a marketplace.

The damning part is that these companies know they harm they are doing, and choose to lean into to it for more $$$.

Thanks for your response. Your open source contributions are perhaps less damned than those of an actual Snap employee ;)

Are you not willing to even entertain the notion that communication platforms could influence the way that it's users communicate with each other? That totally ephemeral and private image based social media could promote a different type of communication compared to something like say, HN, which is public and text based? Sure you take your kid skiing, but presumably you make them wear a helmet and have them start off on the bunny hill, I agree that a risk-free world is an insane demand that justifies infinite authoritarian power but there is a line for everyone.

Yes, I make my kid wear a helmet. I make sure his bindings are set properly. I make sure he's dressed warmly. I make sure he's fed and hydrated.

I am the parent. The ski resort provides the mountain, the snow, and the lifts.

He's a bit too young to be interested in taking pictures of his wang but I'd like to think this is a topic I can handle. Teaching him to navigate a dangerous world is sort of my job. I'm not losing sleep over it.

This is about societal level harm. Sure, you do everything right, but most people don't.

I also do everything correctly, but one time a drunk driver still almost killed me.

Every authoritarian wants more power to prevent "societal level harm". I seem to be hearing that one a lot lately.

> I seem to be hearing that one a lot lately.

Oh really? I'd love to hear a few examples.

Well, good luck when he does become a teenager. Many parents thought the same as you up until that point.

> Let humans communicate freely, some of them will do bad things.

That’s just normal phone calls - no one is complaining about those.

But social networks have algorithms that promote one kind of content over another.

I keep getting recommended YouTube videos of gross and mostly fake pimple removal, on Facebook AI generated fake videos of random crap like Barnacle removal, and google ads for an automated IoT chicken coop.

I have never searched for these things and no living person has ever suggested such things to me. The algorithm lives its own life and none of it is good.

You have a very different experience than I do! My Youtube algorithm suggestions are wonderful, full of science and engineering and history and food and travel and comedy and all kinds of weird esoteric things that would never have been viable in the broadcast TV I grew up with. I am literally delighted.

Maybe you're starving the algorithm and it's trying random things? Look up how to reset the YT algo, I'm sure it's possible. Then try subscribing/liking a few things that you actually like.

If you're within a standard deviation or two of the typical HNer, look up "Practical Engineering" and like a few of his videos. That should get you started.

Perhaps, but my point is it's not 'humans communicating freely', the strange thing I see is not my choice.

Exactly. It's marginal benefit vs marginal harm. Teens can "communicate freely" over text, voice, and video calls, including sending each other photos... TO THEIR CONTACTS.

There is no need for location based recommendations, streaks, nudges, etc. They should be building their social networks in the real world. And if they need friends outside of school, that can come through parentally facilitated activities like sports, clubs, etc. Later you start playing Magic the Gathering at the nerd shop or go to "shows" at the VFW hall.

I thought you had changed the subject to Youtube? Snap is person to person communication, Youtube is broadcast to the public. I don't think Youtube knows who my friends are. I wouldn't call it social media; it's just media.

It makes no sense to group these things together; "youtube leads to sexploitation" is nonsense. What I think I'm hearing is ennui about technology in general, which I can understand, but keep your arguments straight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com