7 ms·

The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require

The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong incentive to attract as many kids as possible. Need a govt intervention. This also isn't negative for free speech as a value, since people can still post under a fake name. It just kills the bots. And without the bot assisted fake news, there will be less pressure and need to censor, so it's actually a win for free speech.

mrfusion 5y ago
I keep saying this but it is so bizarre to me that our knee jerk reaction it to regulate and blame users. Let’s try regulating the problem corporation first.
endisneigh 5y ago
How would you prevent kids from just going on some other, new site? What's the distinction between the internet and social media? Ignoring whether or not what you're describing is technically feasible (I don't think it is) - ultimately as long as children can use the internet the issues at hand will exist. Furthermore, why give social media entities more data in the form of government backed authentication?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "news site" Because social media is a status and looks competition between peers which is where the depression comes from. If they're just reading news and commenting that's fine. The internet itself isn't the problem, it's specifically social media. "Furthermore, why give social media entities more data in the form of government backed authentication?" Part of the law could be to require an outsourced solution, with a Chinese Wall between them. The solution is only able to relay to the company that the person is a real person and over the age of X. Or a government solution, where the government provides a unique token to each valid person which can be used once per registration, so no ID needs to be given to the companies. Whatever it is, I'm sure a solution can be thought of.
- true_religion 5y ago
  I don’t know how the US would do it, but other countries like Korea and China and Russia have an agency to force their internally operated websites to comply. Global sites either fly under the radar by being too small, or comply under threat of being banned when they are large enough.
trutannus 5y ago
> Require ID verification I'll pass on putting my personal ID in the hands of an organization that sells data as a business. No matter how many flimsy laws they put in place to ban selling my PII, you'd have to be born yesterday to think that won't just delay the sale this new treasure-trove of information.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >I'll pass on putting my personal ID in the hands of an organization that sells data as a business. I see this as a win for society. The more friction we insert and the more people are discouraged to join these ad-ware social networks the better.
  - trutannus 5y ago
    I don't think the average person cares enough, or knows enough about how these organizations operate to actually think past putting their ID in whatever state approved portal you need to use. If people do it willingly, it does not reduce the cost to society of millions personal ID documents leaking or being sold to the highest bidder.
- jokowueu 5y ago
  HIPAA isn't a flimsy law and works quite well . Something similar can be used
  - eh9 5y ago
    Sounds like a big ask porting something like that over to a widely public industry
  - trutannus 5y ago
    Right, the difference is medical records don't have a track record of being bought and sold with zero consequence. We're looking to take businesses that operate from the paradigm of "sell first, deal with the fallout later". Not organization that from day one have had a gun to their head if they so much as give the data a sideways look like those under HIPAA.
mrfusion 5y ago
Those sound too chilling. I’d propose banning algorithms for services with over one million users. Users must have complete control over what their feed shows. (And ability to filter)
- convexfunction 5y ago
  I'd just love to see how the law operationalizes and the courts interpret something like "banning algorithms".
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    Obviously it wouldn’t be written into a bill like that. But Just like any other law. It would be something Congress authorizes an agency like the FTC or FCC to regulate. If nothing else the feed algorithms would be public and regulators could provide feedback.
    - convexfunction 5y ago
      Yes, that's what I mean by "the law operationalizes".
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  "banning algorithms" yeah uh good luck with that one
dylan604 5y ago
Kids are still able to buy alcohol by having other people do it for them. They also steal it. During a house break in, the police will often ask if any alcohol is missing which is a tell tale that teenagers were involved. Kids are not simple, and will often out wit the adults in order to do things they want to do. It amazes me how adults seem to forget the things they did as teenagers, and maybe if they were actually goody two-shoe teenagers they had to have known what shenanigans other teens got up to. Pretty much the whole point of being a teenager is seeing what one can get away with by whatever means necessary. Edit: some people are reading too much into this. no where did I suggest don't do x because of y. However, if you think x is a perfect solve, you need to be reminded that y can still happen. solving for y is always a problem
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  "Kids will break the law" isn't a compelling argument to not have the law in the first place. Is it unenforceable? Probably not; it leaves a hell of a digital trail to make a fake account if someone cares enough to tie it together. And even rarely-enforced laws declare that something is unacceptable in society and set a guard rail that most people follow.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  "People still do it" is a lame argument. It's all in the numbers. By that logic, murder should be legal since after all, murders still happen. There are a lot of nice boys and girls who won't do something if it's illegal, but will if the government sanctions it.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  The incentive for kids to break the law will be greatly diminished since the network of their peers won't be at a critical mass and it'll no longer be a requirement for their social status.
Factorium 5y ago
There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scrapers), but now the users. Look at the generally higher quality of Netflix content compared to free-to-air TV. You could apply the same regulation to other addictive products: p*rnography and games. These categories would also improve in quality, be less exploitative, and become less available to children, if a minimum payment was required for access.
- meowface 5y ago
  There was an article on here not too long ago that made a rather salient point that "even if you're paying, you might still be the product". If you're not paying, the only way they'll make money is off of you, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so anyway even if you are paying. Found it: https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre-still-the-product:7 https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card Children have parents and many of them will shell out thousands of dollars a year so their kid can buy Fortnite skins. I don’t imagine a credit card requirement will keep kids off of social media. For the purposes of addressing some of the data privacy concerns, I think it would be even easier to just restrict the collection and/or sale of personal information. Simply charging for the service doesn’t prevent or disincentivize companies from also selling your data.
  - Factorium 5y ago
    The control is still with the parents. They can cut off access by controlling payment access. When the product is free, the control is with the corporation.
nemo44x 5y ago
> This also isn't negative for free speech as a value Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value". It isn't something we strive for; it is a basic right. Things like film ratings are not legally biding for example. The industry took it upon themselves to create ratings as guidelines to parents. > - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Free speech is only a right as far as the constitution guarantees (which is limited). Personally I’d like US culture to fully embrace the value of free speech, but support for it generally depends on if your favorite political party is in power. If we truly valued free speech we would not have all this debate over censorship.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    The Bill of Rights is a list of God given rights the government CANNOT take away from you, not something they give you.
    - CTmystery 5y ago
      In self rule, The goverment is us. We can take away any part of the bill of rights that we see fit, with a new amendment
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Fascinating how God did not appear to intervene in the preceding 100 centuries of government taking away exactly those rights.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value"." Speech on someone's private platform isn't a right, it's a privilege that they're choosing to extend to you. That's why in this instance, this ID verification law is merely protecting the ethical value and culture of free speech, not the legal right to do so which remains unchanged. It's a shame we don't have separate terms for the legal right of free speech and cultural value of free speech, since it's easy to confuse the two. "As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all." I hadn't thought of the angle that banning kids off social media was effectively a government restriction of free speech. Interesting perspective! Any 1A afficianados want to provide commentary here?
ch4s3 5y ago
Both of those proposals would probably have the effect of making it nearly impossible to ever compete against something like instagram, and would cement their existing position. We could probably make some requirements around age, and focus enforcement on the biggest players in the space. However if we require real ID verification, no is going to enter the space ever again and FB/Instagram may well continue to be dominant because of the high compliance cost.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Is KYC that expensive? It's a mostly automated process that takes at most 10 seconds of human time per user and has a number of outsourced solutions available. Or the government can provide a solution. Or they can implement these regulations only on social networks with more than X thousand users.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
titzer 5y ago
How about, reset market valuation to something reasonable, instead of speculators pushing the stock price to insane levels of overvaluation, justifying every dirty trick in the book to justify said price speculation? Do we really need to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into a couple of chat and picture-sharing apps? Especially when said pile of junk spies on your every move, every preference, and ultimately, every waking moment? It's almost as if the market did not deliver a good outcome for anything but investors.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  What is wrong with speculation? The whole point of the equity market is to allocate more capital to companies that have promising futures so they can use that capital to grow.
sobellian 5y ago
It seems to me that children "get" the problem with Facebook & Instagram better than their parents. To quote an 11-year old boy speaking with FB internal research, "Facebook is for old people."[1] Maybe we should implement an age ceiling on use of social media! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files...
goodluckchuck 5y ago
I'd go in a completely opposite direction: - Require that users be allowed to access anonymously. This protects people from Facebook, by disassociating their identity from their "user" while allowing FB to market to the user.
barbazoo 5y ago
I think people are missing your point. Yes it is chilling and yes who in their right mind would give FB their ID but I think that's exactly the point. No one should want want to. People let FB abuse them simply because they don't know what's going on behind the scenes and having been manipulated too much already. FB knows waaaay too much about people already and has no problem selling that data to whoever puts money in their pockets.
pokstad 5y ago
This. People are so worried about adults freely sharing information, but when it comes to children being influenced and manipulated we don’t make a big enough deal.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I grew up on an internet community that railed against age restrictions for video games and content blockers for children. Bypassing school content blockers was a perennial favorite topic. I have to admit it’s surreal to see proposals like this on some of those same sites that advocated for freedom and deferring to parental choice: > Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. It’s also surreal to see that totalitarian governments like China are doing almost exactly this (see recent video gaming bans for under-18s) with a negative reaction from HN and tech communities, but for some reason the same restrictions are championed for social media. I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that HN and online tech communities are getting older. We can imagine ourselves playing video games as kids, but social media is a new, scary foreign concept that we need to protect the children from. I have to wonder if the whole anti-social-media trend will play out like the anti-violent video game protests of the 90s: A flurry of “think of the children” arguments and political non-action that ultimately fizzles out when the new generation grows up and takes over the discourse, having growing up with social media and turned out just fine.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  I'm with you, though, I have a fairly controversial opinion on FB and social media in general. I think Facebook is just the result you get when the general public participates in online discourse. I believe the algorithms may in some cases magnify certain discussions that many deem "dangerous," but mostly, it's just that people have zero empathy when conversing online. If you've seen Parks and Rec, the scenes from the town hall meetings are basically Facebook. You have one person complaining about some inane thing nobody cares about, another complaining about undesirable people in their neighborhood, another spouting off conspiracies, etc. Back in the early days of the internet, most of the people participating in online discussion were nerds. This fact alone made the discourse more manageable since most forums focused on discussions around specific topics. Of course, there was always the "General Discussion" parts of any forum which suffered similar problems to what we see on FB. The difference was, the forums were heavily moderated. I'm sure many here have stories about some authoritarian mod that banned them just for having a different opinion. Facebook on the other hand, isn't moderated much. If you start a flame war on FB, there is no one there to ban you. In the earlier days of the internet, you would get banned pretty quickly if you veered too far from the acceptable level of discourse. Shit, look at forums with little moderation, they are 1000x worse than FB or any social media app. There is no algorithm that made 4chan the cesspit that it is (was?). Personally, I think FB's approach has been pretty hands-off, and I think this is the correct choice for their platform. It seems, what everyone wants (this "whistleblower" included) is for the ideas they don't like to be moderated. The internet has shown us what "the other side" really thinks, and we don't like it.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> We ban kids from alcohol And it's worked out well! I, for one, never so much as tasted alcohol until I was 21, because it would have been illegal for me to have done otherwise.

mrfusion 5y ago

I keep saying this but it is so bizarre to me that our knee jerk reaction it to regulate and blame users. Let’s try regulating the problem corporation first.

endisneigh 5y ago

How would you prevent kids from just going on some other, new site? What's the distinction between the internet and social media? Ignoring whether or not what you're describing is technically feasible (I don't think it is) - ultimately as long as children can use the internet the issues at hand will exist. Furthermore, why give social media entities more data in the form of government backed authentication?

fighterpilot 5y ago
"news site" Because social media is a status and looks competition between peers which is where the depression comes from. If they're just reading news and commenting that's fine. The internet itself isn't the problem, it's specifically social media. "Furthermore, why give social media entities more data in the form of government backed authentication?" Part of the law could be to require an outsourced solution, with a Chinese Wall between them. The solution is only able to relay to the company that the person is a real person and over the age of X. Or a government solution, where the government provides a unique token to each valid person which can be used once per registration, so no ID needs to be given to the companies. Whatever it is, I'm sure a solution can be thought of.
true_religion 5y ago
I don’t know how the US would do it, but other countries like Korea and China and Russia have an agency to force their internally operated websites to comply. Global sites either fly under the radar by being too small, or comply under threat of being banned when they are large enough.

trutannus 5y ago

> Require ID verification I'll pass on putting my personal ID in the hands of an organization that sells data as a business. No matter how many flimsy laws they put in place to ban selling my PII, you'd have to be born yesterday to think that won't just delay the sale this new treasure-trove of information.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>I'll pass on putting my personal ID in the hands of an organization that sells data as a business. I see this as a win for society. The more friction we insert and the more people are discouraged to join these ad-ware social networks the better.
- trutannus 5y ago
  I don't think the average person cares enough, or knows enough about how these organizations operate to actually think past putting their ID in whatever state approved portal you need to use. If people do it willingly, it does not reduce the cost to society of millions personal ID documents leaking or being sold to the highest bidder.
jokowueu 5y ago
HIPAA isn't a flimsy law and works quite well . Something similar can be used
- eh9 5y ago
  Sounds like a big ask porting something like that over to a widely public industry
- trutannus 5y ago
  Right, the difference is medical records don't have a track record of being bought and sold with zero consequence. We're looking to take businesses that operate from the paradigm of "sell first, deal with the fallout later". Not organization that from day one have had a gun to their head if they so much as give the data a sideways look like those under HIPAA.

mrfusion 5y ago

Those sound too chilling. I’d propose banning algorithms for services with over one million users. Users must have complete control over what their feed shows. (And ability to filter)

convexfunction 5y ago
I'd just love to see how the law operationalizes and the courts interpret something like "banning algorithms".
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Obviously it wouldn’t be written into a bill like that. But Just like any other law. It would be something Congress authorizes an agency like the FTC or FCC to regulate. If nothing else the feed algorithms would be public and regulators could provide feedback.
  - convexfunction 5y ago
    Yes, that's what I mean by "the law operationalizes".
whimsicalism 5y ago
"banning algorithms" yeah uh good luck with that one

dylan604 5y ago

Kids are still able to buy alcohol by having other people do it for them. They also steal it. During a house break in, the police will often ask if any alcohol is missing which is a tell tale that teenagers were involved. Kids are not simple, and will often out wit the adults in order to do things they want to do. It amazes me how adults seem to forget the things they did as teenagers, and maybe if they were actually goody two-shoe teenagers they had to have known what shenanigans other teens got up to. Pretty much the whole point of being a teenager is seeing what one can get away with by whatever means necessary. Edit: some people are reading too much into this. no where did I suggest don't do x because of y. However, if you think x is a perfect solve, you need to be reminded that y can still happen. solving for y is always a problem

shadowgovt 5y ago
"Kids will break the law" isn't a compelling argument to not have the law in the first place. Is it unenforceable? Probably not; it leaves a hell of a digital trail to make a fake account if someone cares enough to tie it together. And even rarely-enforced laws declare that something is unacceptable in society and set a guard rail that most people follow.
AlbertCory 5y ago
"People still do it" is a lame argument. It's all in the numbers. By that logic, murder should be legal since after all, murders still happen. There are a lot of nice boys and girls who won't do something if it's illegal, but will if the government sanctions it.
fighterpilot 5y ago
The incentive for kids to break the law will be greatly diminished since the network of their peers won't be at a critical mass and it'll no longer be a requirement for their social status.

Factorium 5y ago

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scrapers), but now the users. Look at the generally higher quality of Netflix content compared to free-to-air TV. You could apply the same regulation to other addictive products: p*rnography and games. These categories would also improve in quality, be less exploitative, and become less available to children, if a minimum payment was required for access.

meowface 5y ago
There was an article on here not too long ago that made a rather salient point that "even if you're paying, you might still be the product". If you're not paying, the only way they'll make money is off of you, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so anyway even if you are paying. Found it: https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre-still-the-product:7 https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331
throwaway894345 5y ago
> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card Children have parents and many of them will shell out thousands of dollars a year so their kid can buy Fortnite skins. I don’t imagine a credit card requirement will keep kids off of social media. For the purposes of addressing some of the data privacy concerns, I think it would be even easier to just restrict the collection and/or sale of personal information. Simply charging for the service doesn’t prevent or disincentivize companies from also selling your data.
- Factorium 5y ago
  The control is still with the parents. They can cut off access by controlling payment access. When the product is free, the control is with the corporation.

nemo44x 5y ago

> This also isn't negative for free speech as a value Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value". It isn't something we strive for; it is a basic right. Things like film ratings are not legally biding for example. The industry took it upon themselves to create ratings as guidelines to parents. > - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all.

rajin444 5y ago
Free speech is only a right as far as the constitution guarantees (which is limited). Personally I’d like US culture to fully embrace the value of free speech, but support for it generally depends on if your favorite political party is in power. If we truly valued free speech we would not have all this debate over censorship.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  The Bill of Rights is a list of God given rights the government CANNOT take away from you, not something they give you.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    In self rule, The goverment is us. We can take away any part of the bill of rights that we see fit, with a new amendment
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Fascinating how God did not appear to intervene in the preceding 100 centuries of government taking away exactly those rights.
fighterpilot 5y ago
"Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value"." Speech on someone's private platform isn't a right, it's a privilege that they're choosing to extend to you. That's why in this instance, this ID verification law is merely protecting the ethical value and culture of free speech, not the legal right to do so which remains unchanged. It's a shame we don't have separate terms for the legal right of free speech and cultural value of free speech, since it's easy to confuse the two. "As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all." I hadn't thought of the angle that banning kids off social media was effectively a government restriction of free speech. Interesting perspective! Any 1A afficianados want to provide commentary here?

ch4s3 5y ago

Both of those proposals would probably have the effect of making it nearly impossible to ever compete against something like instagram, and would cement their existing position. We could probably make some requirements around age, and focus enforcement on the biggest players in the space. However if we require real ID verification, no is going to enter the space ever again and FB/Instagram may well continue to be dominant because of the high compliance cost.

fighterpilot 5y ago
Is KYC that expensive? It's a mostly automated process that takes at most 10 seconds of human time per user and has a number of outsourced solutions available. Or the government can provide a solution. Or they can implement these regulations only on social networks with more than X thousand users.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

titzer 5y ago

How about, reset market valuation to something reasonable, instead of speculators pushing the stock price to insane levels of overvaluation, justifying every dirty trick in the book to justify said price speculation? Do we really need to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into a couple of chat and picture-sharing apps? Especially when said pile of junk spies on your every move, every preference, and ultimately, every waking moment? It's almost as if the market did not deliver a good outcome for anything but investors.

whimsicalism 5y ago
What is wrong with speculation? The whole point of the equity market is to allocate more capital to companies that have promising futures so they can use that capital to grow.

sobellian 5y ago

It seems to me that children "get" the problem with Facebook & Instagram better than their parents. To quote an 11-year old boy speaking with FB internal research, "Facebook is for old people."[1] Maybe we should implement an age ceiling on use of social media! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files...

goodluckchuck 5y ago

I'd go in a completely opposite direction: - Require that users be allowed to access anonymously. This protects people from Facebook, by disassociating their identity from their "user" while allowing FB to market to the user.

barbazoo 5y ago

I think people are missing your point. Yes it is chilling and yes who in their right mind would give FB their ID but I think that's exactly the point. No one should want want to. People let FB abuse them simply because they don't know what's going on behind the scenes and having been manipulated too much already. FB knows waaaay too much about people already and has no problem selling that data to whoever puts money in their pockets.

pokstad 5y ago

This. People are so worried about adults freely sharing information, but when it comes to children being influenced and manipulated we don’t make a big enough deal.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

I grew up on an internet community that railed against age restrictions for video games and content blockers for children. Bypassing school content blockers was a perennial favorite topic. I have to admit it’s surreal to see proposals like this on some of those same sites that advocated for freedom and deferring to parental choice: > Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. It’s also surreal to see that totalitarian governments like China are doing almost exactly this (see recent video gaming bans for under-18s) with a negative reaction from HN and tech communities, but for some reason the same restrictions are championed for social media. I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that HN and online tech communities are getting older. We can imagine ourselves playing video games as kids, but social media is a new, scary foreign concept that we need to protect the children from. I have to wonder if the whole anti-social-media trend will play out like the anti-violent video game protests of the 90s: A flurry of “think of the children” arguments and political non-action that ultimately fizzles out when the new generation grows up and takes over the discourse, having growing up with social media and turned out just fine.

dntrkv 5y ago
I'm with you, though, I have a fairly controversial opinion on FB and social media in general. I think Facebook is just the result you get when the general public participates in online discourse. I believe the algorithms may in some cases magnify certain discussions that many deem "dangerous," but mostly, it's just that people have zero empathy when conversing online. If you've seen Parks and Rec, the scenes from the town hall meetings are basically Facebook. You have one person complaining about some inane thing nobody cares about, another complaining about undesirable people in their neighborhood, another spouting off conspiracies, etc. Back in the early days of the internet, most of the people participating in online discussion were nerds. This fact alone made the discourse more manageable since most forums focused on discussions around specific topics. Of course, there was always the "General Discussion" parts of any forum which suffered similar problems to what we see on FB. The difference was, the forums were heavily moderated. I'm sure many here have stories about some authoritarian mod that banned them just for having a different opinion. Facebook on the other hand, isn't moderated much. If you start a flame war on FB, there is no one there to ban you. In the earlier days of the internet, you would get banned pretty quickly if you veered too far from the acceptable level of discourse. Shit, look at forums with little moderation, they are 1000x worse than FB or any social media app. There is no algorithm that made 4chan the cesspit that it is (was?). Personally, I think FB's approach has been pretty hands-off, and I think this is the correct choice for their platform. It seems, what everyone wants (this "whistleblower" included) is for the ideas they don't like to be moderated. The internet has shown us what "the other side" really thinks, and we don't like it.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> We ban kids from alcohol And it's worked out well! I, for one, never so much as tasted alcohol until I was 21, because it would have been illegal for me to have done otherwise.