So your argument is that hackernews is similar to TikTok and instagram?
I completely disagree.
The core of HN is not self promotion, narration, or comparison - the very things driving teen suicides up from social media use.
I further suggest most of the replies to my original comment are willfully ignoring the data the Australian govt is citing for these bans, and what psychologists worldwide are citing.
None of the discussion here so far even touches on a possible solution to a problem that is driving measurable deaths.
Instead we have a collection of false equivalence and abdication of social responsibility by big tech, which is fairly on brand for hn and frankly intellectually lazy from my perspective.
63C Age-restricted social media platform
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform
means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service
is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more
end-users;
(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with,
some or all of the other end-users;
(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the
service;
I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chase a perfect solution that will never exist.
Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.
This has too many chilling effects. It's so far from perfect it's crazy.
By the letter of the law any service even allowing only one-on-one conversations is covered. It's obvious to me that these secondary effects are by design.
Open communication is the most important thing that democracy needs, and this is a clear attack on it.
I completely disagree.
The core of HN is not self promotion, narration, or comparison - the very things driving teen suicides up from social media use.
I further suggest most of the replies to my original comment are willfully ignoring the data the Australian govt is citing for these bans, and what psychologists worldwide are citing.
None of the discussion here so far even touches on a possible solution to a problem that is driving measurable deaths.
Instead we have a collection of false equivalence and abdication of social responsibility by big tech, which is fairly on brand for hn and frankly intellectually lazy from my perspective.