Search Explore

  • andsoitis · 12 hours ago

    I think it is undeniable that that would fuck you up. Imagine, that's what you see, normalized...

    • PearlRiver · 11 hours ago

      When a minor gets online it is only a matter of when not if before they get questions about their underwear.

      • danhau · 5 hours ago

        You should read the article

        • ChrisRR · 5 hours ago

          Surely that falls under the 25% sexually suggestive messages in the article

          • a96 · 4 hours ago

            You might want to re-read the hn guidelines.

        • tangenter · 11 hours ago

          The uncomfortable truth is HN needs to see this. And the usual responses of “it’s the job of the parents to police this, not society and not laws” should have one comment thread dedicated so they can all echo to each other the same statement over and over while the rest of the thread actually talks about the article and the societal issues at hand.

          • bcraven · 11 hours ago

            Yes I think when the social media bans (e.g. Australia, UK) are mentioned _this_ is the context that the conversation is missing.

            • protocolture · 9 hours ago

              Its not. A big problem with the way it was handled is that non logged in users aren't affected. So Youtube for instance, cant tailor its suggestions for the users age, and they get suggested really screwed up shit instead.

              Age verification sucks. But most of these platforms need to be atomised, not restricted.

          • fragmede · 10 hours ago

            yeah, that's fucked.

            • lobster45 · 9 hours ago

              The reality is these platforms are optimized to use any content to increase page views and ad revenue. I am typically not an advocate of regulation, however at the very least restrict these platforms to 18 and older

              • bix6 · 9 hours ago

                What the fuck

                • dsign · 8 hours ago

                  So, we are giving up privacy in all our electronic communications because a bunch of companies can’t stop running algorithms to drive up engagement? From the article above, it seems Snapchat messaging would work just fine if kids had to touch phones to exchange contacts. Versus putting everybody in 24x7 AI surveillance, the lesser bad here is to forbid those algorithms, even if that bankrupts the platforms.

                  • danhau · 5 hours ago

                    But think of those poor megacorps! How will they ever turn a profit without their precious algorithms? Invading every user‘s privacy is only morally right! What else could they, or governments, possibly do? Make line not go up? I shudder to think!

                    • red-iron-pine · 1 hours ago

                      large companies would break democracy if it interfered with income

                      they used to send 9 year olds into the mines

                      • goobatrooba · 34 minutes ago

                        I'm not sure it's that straightforward. What the article shows is that even a legal, commercial, and publicly known platform serves this content. What it doesn't show is all the other contexts kids may encounter it.

                      • toofy · 5 hours ago

                        it really is wild.

                        i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.

                        the companies will have no one but themselves to blame when they’re regulated in and out.

                        if the companies don’t care at all about people and society to take actual material concrete steps to help, then we don’t need to care about them.

                        if they don’t care about me and mine, then i don’t care about them.

                        if a company cares about profits at any cost and has no regard for people, regulate them right out of business. i’m ok with that, they don’t care about me, have no obligation towards them.