4 ms·
We all agree that this is the problem, but the elusive solution seems to be the field on which we disagree. I prefer to take an extremely restrained approach t
by jMyles 7y ago
We all agree that this is the problem, but the elusive solution seems to be the field on which we disagree.
I prefer to take an extremely restrained approach to state-backed restrictioins content and instead focus on empowering people to recognize when they are being manipulated and resist being fooled.
My concern is that the state-based censorship approach won't last long into the information age, and that if we haven't developed robust protections within our communities by then (against the full exposure of "bad" content) then the effects may be worse for the wear.
- pwinnski 7y agoThe naive part, then, is the idea that we can develop robust protections within our communities. At the risk of invoking "think of the children," our communities are ever-evolving, and the most vulnerable members are replenished regularly. I'd love to believe that we could, as a community, make wise choices, but reality demonstrates otherwise. I'm very much loathe to grant the government yet more ability to restrict content, but there is no doubt that television advertising bans on alcohol and tobacco are effective[0], so I definitely understand the desire to enact similar restrictions around unhealthy foods given their societal costs. I think the line is too fuzzy for me to be comfortable, but I'd rather go that direction than re-introducing tobacco advertising knowing that doing so will result in a reversal of the positive benefits. [0] https://www.nber.org/reporter/winter04/saffer.html https://www.nber.org/reporter/winter04/saffer.html