Michael Lind on superfluous college degrees; David Pinsof on tribalism; Robin Hanson on academic insulation; Lukianoff vs. Haidt on the Kids Online Safety Act
I tend to agree with Lukianoff here. My wife and I have agreed on no smart phones for our kids till they are at least 16 (possibly a dumb phone with just calls and text beforehand) but I don't see how the government can control social media access without doing a lot of spying on users in general. If I decide I want to sign up for X or whatever, how do I prove I am over 16 or 18 or whatever?
It sounds a lot like requiring a national id for everyone, and given how porous the Social Security Number system is with regards to identity theft, I am not thrilled by the prospects of having another source, especially one collected by online social media companies (and how is it decided what sites are required to collect that? A web forums going to need to? What about comments sections on blogs?)
I think a more secure National Benefit ID would be better than our current state IDs plus low security SS #, where low security is based on it explicitly not being an ID.
All age requirements need to be enforced by IDs.
Now I’m reminded that accountability is the result of enforcement. There is no accountability without enforcement. Like the Real Law is what’s enforced, and the Real Speed Limit is usually about 10 mph faster than the posted limit.
The desirable High Trust society comes from accountability which mostly means enforcement.
Most problems of govt abuse of Nat IDs are abuses already happening, tho they’d be easier with Nat ID, tho a single ID would also be able to be made more secure.
Well, I spend a lot of time working on processes and verification of data so I probably have thought more about this than you have. How do you suspect the government is going to ensure that people under 16 don't have access to social media? How will this rule be enforced? Typically transactions requiring people to be a certain age require proof of age, e.g. a driver's license or state id card. Is this going to require such a card? How will a website determine who is what age? Who will get punished if a 14 year old is found to be using Facebook or whatever the next version of social media hell is?
Perhaps you should think through what actual enforcement mechanisms for this law are going to look like before you accuse others of fearmongering.
I don't think you've thought it through. Apparently you didnt even ask Google. Some expert.
Are you familiar with how Facebook does age verification? Ever heard of Yoti?
Speaking of Facebook, third parties let you login to your account using your Facebook login. Facebook verifies who you are for them. Why can't the government (or whomever you prefer) set up an app with your age verification that can be referenced to verify to others?
Do you read what you reference? Yoti themselves only claim “within two years” accuracy on pictures fed to them, and it isn’t like it is hard to spoof pictures. But aha, you can give them supporting documentation to prove age, but then that is right back to the state ID issue. And hold on, all that does is create a digital ID with your biometrics, pictures and government documents… oh it is a national ID, just facilitated by a private corporation.
It’s right there on their web site man. Give your reflexive nonsense a break.
First, you don't have to use these social apps. If you are that worried about your data, these are products you should never want to even be near.
Yoti - So that would mean anyone more than two or three years older than the cutoff WOULDN'T have to give additional info?
I gave two options. What about the other one I gave?
Aside: I don't get this fear about a national ID. We give all this info and more to get driver's license, passport, TSA Pre check, Global ID, and more. Social Security, IRS, employers, credit card companies, banks, mortgage lenders, insurance companies and more have more data than this would require, if not the picture too.
Heck, I threw the people at Comcast in a tizzy because I wouldn't give them my social security number. Apparently that rarely happens.
So we had "Fearmongering! That isn't happening," and now "Even if it did happen it isn't that bad!" Will you now move straight to "It is happening, and it is a good thing!" to complete the trifecta?
Lind's post seems to entirely misunderstand the legal nature and motivations of both constitutions and regulations. State regulation of commerce and labor is secondary to national regulation of commerce and labor. A new constitutional convention wouldn't bother with allowing states to pass competing regulations because, unlike in the 18th century, they'd simply create the means for national regulation of everything.
This is more due to technology than anything else. In the 18th century, it was understood that local governments faced very different conditions and needed to be able to react accordingly. A national body simply couldn't easily impose such standards because they would be difficult to communicate and impossible to enforce.
Lind talks about "priority" but needs to recognize that technological advance changes priorities. What people previously did by literally sitting in a room and writing things down, they can now assemble with use of computers and with access to much more information. The cost of imposing and enforcing regulations has dramatically decreased.
Hence, it'd be very easy for motivated parties to introduce additional regulations into a constitutional convention. And because they are low priorities for many, they wouldn't immediately be objected to.
The end result would be to replace arbitrary trade barriers between states with arbitrary trade restrictions upon all.
Perhaps the root of the problem with 'Phones in Schools' is teenagers being forced to spend their weekdays in prisons (I mean schools) for the most part, against their will.
If you were forced to spend the majority of your time with people with whom you have nothing in common other than geographic location and birth year, you'd probably also want to check out.
I agree that if schools were less awful it would be less of a problem, but I also think that phones are excessively tempting distractions. Both are true, and both issues need to be addressed. Fixing schools is the harder problem which makes people want to ignore it, but it does need solving.
That's a real concern, too. Almost certainly schools shouldn't have the structure they do today. Or at least there shouldn't be just one structure, but different types of educational processes for different people.
I am taking an online language class, I want to take it, I earnestly want to learn what it's teaching me, I'm paying good money to take it, it's very interesting but it's very hard and during the hard parts I find myself reflexively reaching for my phone for a sneak view in a manner that prevents the online teacher from seeing what I'm doing, and I have to check myself. And I'm an adult where it really doesn't matter if I "pass" or fail, it's just something I want to do. Reflex is a helluva drug...apologies to Rick James...
Just a thought...kids that don't want to be there in the first place...phone.
On language, spend time both on grammar and vocabulary and talking practice. Once you’re talking with understanding, but with errors, if you don’t soon correct your errors they become a bad habit much harder to unlearn. Sadly my experience with Slovak.
Hearing sentences and repeating them is what I found most useful for communicating.
Definitely. Both the really hard part and the hearing and repeating part. When one is old (me) it's brutally hard. But, I can actually tell my faculties improve as I challenge them. So it goes...
On Lind: The corporation where I worked most of my career often stipulated baccalaureate for entry level positions that didn’t really need it. Frankly, in our entry level screening process, we often observed shortcomings in basic knowledge useful in our business (name two states on the west coast, how would you calculate cost per mile, demonstration of teamwork skills, etc.) that many college graduates could not answer. I can still recall some mind-boggling shows of ignorance. We began to accept a mix of applicants with and without college degrees. Regularly, those without the degree were the ones we hired.
On KOSA: I land on the side of Lukianoff, based mainly on the governmental track record of program mismanagement and growing intrusion into our everyday lives.
Add to KOSA: tax on advertisement that is progressives with "engagement," something like minutes per time period (day?) from a single device and leave social media algorithms to promote less engaging content.
KOSA seems to share a common problem with most any new US law - it tries to address too much in one piece of legislation. It tries to be a solution rather than simply an improvement. If it were me I'd try a bill that did about half the things listed, focusing on the easiest to implement most effectively, and see how that went. Maybe add more later, maybe not.
I tend to agree with Lukianoff here. My wife and I have agreed on no smart phones for our kids till they are at least 16 (possibly a dumb phone with just calls and text beforehand) but I don't see how the government can control social media access without doing a lot of spying on users in general. If I decide I want to sign up for X or whatever, how do I prove I am over 16 or 18 or whatever?
It sounds a lot like requiring a national id for everyone, and given how porous the Social Security Number system is with regards to identity theft, I am not thrilled by the prospects of having another source, especially one collected by online social media companies (and how is it decided what sites are required to collect that? A web forums going to need to? What about comments sections on blogs?)
I think a more secure National Benefit ID would be better than our current state IDs plus low security SS #, where low security is based on it explicitly not being an ID.
All age requirements need to be enforced by IDs.
Now I’m reminded that accountability is the result of enforcement. There is no accountability without enforcement. Like the Real Law is what’s enforced, and the Real Speed Limit is usually about 10 mph faster than the posted limit.
The desirable High Trust society comes from accountability which mostly means enforcement.
Most problems of govt abuse of Nat IDs are abuses already happening, tho they’d be easier with Nat ID, tho a single ID would also be able to be made more secure.
Fearmongering. I doubt it would require anything close to a national ID but IDK. Clearly you don't either.
Well, I spend a lot of time working on processes and verification of data so I probably have thought more about this than you have. How do you suspect the government is going to ensure that people under 16 don't have access to social media? How will this rule be enforced? Typically transactions requiring people to be a certain age require proof of age, e.g. a driver's license or state id card. Is this going to require such a card? How will a website determine who is what age? Who will get punished if a 14 year old is found to be using Facebook or whatever the next version of social media hell is?
Perhaps you should think through what actual enforcement mechanisms for this law are going to look like before you accuse others of fearmongering.
I don't think you've thought it through. Apparently you didnt even ask Google. Some expert.
Are you familiar with how Facebook does age verification? Ever heard of Yoti?
Speaking of Facebook, third parties let you login to your account using your Facebook login. Facebook verifies who you are for them. Why can't the government (or whomever you prefer) set up an app with your age verification that can be referenced to verify to others?
Do you read what you reference? Yoti themselves only claim “within two years” accuracy on pictures fed to them, and it isn’t like it is hard to spoof pictures. But aha, you can give them supporting documentation to prove age, but then that is right back to the state ID issue. And hold on, all that does is create a digital ID with your biometrics, pictures and government documents… oh it is a national ID, just facilitated by a private corporation.
It’s right there on their web site man. Give your reflexive nonsense a break.
First, you don't have to use these social apps. If you are that worried about your data, these are products you should never want to even be near.
Yoti - So that would mean anyone more than two or three years older than the cutoff WOULDN'T have to give additional info?
I gave two options. What about the other one I gave?
Aside: I don't get this fear about a national ID. We give all this info and more to get driver's license, passport, TSA Pre check, Global ID, and more. Social Security, IRS, employers, credit card companies, banks, mortgage lenders, insurance companies and more have more data than this would require, if not the picture too.
Heck, I threw the people at Comcast in a tizzy because I wouldn't give them my social security number. Apparently that rarely happens.
So we had "Fearmongering! That isn't happening," and now "Even if it did happen it isn't that bad!" Will you now move straight to "It is happening, and it is a good thing!" to complete the trifecta?
Lind's post seems to entirely misunderstand the legal nature and motivations of both constitutions and regulations. State regulation of commerce and labor is secondary to national regulation of commerce and labor. A new constitutional convention wouldn't bother with allowing states to pass competing regulations because, unlike in the 18th century, they'd simply create the means for national regulation of everything.
This is more due to technology than anything else. In the 18th century, it was understood that local governments faced very different conditions and needed to be able to react accordingly. A national body simply couldn't easily impose such standards because they would be difficult to communicate and impossible to enforce.
Lind talks about "priority" but needs to recognize that technological advance changes priorities. What people previously did by literally sitting in a room and writing things down, they can now assemble with use of computers and with access to much more information. The cost of imposing and enforcing regulations has dramatically decreased.
Hence, it'd be very easy for motivated parties to introduce additional regulations into a constitutional convention. And because they are low priorities for many, they wouldn't immediately be objected to.
The end result would be to replace arbitrary trade barriers between states with arbitrary trade restrictions upon all.
Perhaps the root of the problem with 'Phones in Schools' is teenagers being forced to spend their weekdays in prisons (I mean schools) for the most part, against their will.
If you were forced to spend the majority of your time with people with whom you have nothing in common other than geographic location and birth year, you'd probably also want to check out.
I agree that if schools were less awful it would be less of a problem, but I also think that phones are excessively tempting distractions. Both are true, and both issues need to be addressed. Fixing schools is the harder problem which makes people want to ignore it, but it does need solving.
Of course giving teenagers unfiltered smartphones is both stupid and immoral.
And I'll admit I was partially trolling with my comment.
Seriously, however, maybe schools shouldn't (or possibly can't) be fixed. They should be eliminated.
That's a real concern, too. Almost certainly schools shouldn't have the structure they do today. Or at least there shouldn't be just one structure, but different types of educational processes for different people.
I am taking an online language class, I want to take it, I earnestly want to learn what it's teaching me, I'm paying good money to take it, it's very interesting but it's very hard and during the hard parts I find myself reflexively reaching for my phone for a sneak view in a manner that prevents the online teacher from seeing what I'm doing, and I have to check myself. And I'm an adult where it really doesn't matter if I "pass" or fail, it's just something I want to do. Reflex is a helluva drug...apologies to Rick James...
Just a thought...kids that don't want to be there in the first place...phone.
Real learning is hard. Actually really hard.
On language, spend time both on grammar and vocabulary and talking practice. Once you’re talking with understanding, but with errors, if you don’t soon correct your errors they become a bad habit much harder to unlearn. Sadly my experience with Slovak.
Hearing sentences and repeating them is what I found most useful for communicating.
Definitely. Both the really hard part and the hearing and repeating part. When one is old (me) it's brutally hard. But, I can actually tell my faculties improve as I challenge them. So it goes...
On Lind: The corporation where I worked most of my career often stipulated baccalaureate for entry level positions that didn’t really need it. Frankly, in our entry level screening process, we often observed shortcomings in basic knowledge useful in our business (name two states on the west coast, how would you calculate cost per mile, demonstration of teamwork skills, etc.) that many college graduates could not answer. I can still recall some mind-boggling shows of ignorance. We began to accept a mix of applicants with and without college degrees. Regularly, those without the degree were the ones we hired.
On KOSA: I land on the side of Lukianoff, based mainly on the governmental track record of program mismanagement and growing intrusion into our everyday lives.
Add to KOSA: tax on advertisement that is progressives with "engagement," something like minutes per time period (day?) from a single device and leave social media algorithms to promote less engaging content.
Most advertisement is pollution, mental pollution. Taxing it as a vice is good.
At this stage, I think anyone who wants to increase federal regulation about anything is a fool.
Insurance and the practice of law are other services whose regulation by states makes it untradeable.
KOSA seems to share a common problem with most any new US law - it tries to address too much in one piece of legislation. It tries to be a solution rather than simply an improvement. If it were me I'd try a bill that did about half the things listed, focusing on the easiest to implement most effectively, and see how that went. Maybe add more later, maybe not.