4 ms·

If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone. I don't have a smartphone myself and I am not interested in getting one. But

by erfgh 5y ago

If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone. I don't have a smartphone myself and I am not interested in getting one. But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian.

Damogran6 5y ago
The 'I don't even HAVE a TV' trope. It demonstrates a lack of empathy, that because YOU don't have a problem, a significant percentage of the population might not be in a different situation.
- godshatter 5y ago
  Some of us saw it coming and nipped it in the bud, or saw what it was doing to us and did something about it. I cut the cable 20 years ago or so after wasting one weekend flipping through channels, not finding anything I liked, and realized it was a problem and took steps to mitigate it. Same story with FB - a friend got me into Farm Town when that was a thing and I realized I had the choice to make that my life for the foreseeable future or nope out of it. I'm not the OP, but when I suggest that someone walk away from FB or whatever is causing them problems at the moment and let them know that I did the same, it's supposed to let them know that they do have choices and that it is possible for some people to be able to do that, so maybe they should try it? It's not a lack of empathy, it's a suggestion on how to get out of a problem I very much empathize with. Of course not everyone can. I have my own problems I consistently fail to nope out of, too.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
Perhaps I've not expressed myself clearly. It's not about the smartphone. Smartphones are a red herring. They're not the problem. The problem are some particular services accessible through that phone.
dahfizz 5y ago
> But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. Where is the line? I don't like murder. Is banning murder totalitarian? I don't like unfair elections. Is banning election tampering totalitarian? Every law and rule in all of society exists to prevent something that someone (or lots of people) don't like. We usually draw abstractions on top of these likes and dislikes - things like "rights" and "morals". Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, so deriding someone for drawing that line "because you don't like it" is reductionist and silly.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Typically you place the line at hurting someone else. If your own personal choice only affects you then that's a you problem. To go the next step and take freedoms away from people that are able to handle themselves. The two examples you gave directly affect others. One exception might be children since they aren't developed enough to make logical decisions on their own. IMO government restrictions should be a last resort, not the first option you consider. Additionally, they tend not to work as well as you might think on many things (e.g. drug war, prohibition)
- bloqs 5y ago
  The line is: what does societies weakest member look like. How do we stop those people being exploited. You then apply the action to everyone above that point.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    That's your line. Clearly this is not universally accepted as the best way to form a society.
    - billiam 5y ago
      I think we have a lot of examples of what happens when the wealthy and powerful get anything they want (see the right of kings, predestination, Social Darwinism, fascism, etc) and we blame the poor and weak for all their problems and victimize them. There is a big difference between making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness available to most vulnerable and disadvantaged in your society and "forming" your society around it. In the US we only made basic rights we take for granted available under law to gay and disabled people in the last two of three decades.
go_elmo 5y ago
Youre right. If you dont like heroin just stop using it. Its easy and just a personal decision nothing more, right?
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that making heroin illegal has stopped its usage? Strange since it's currently an epidemic.
  - wyre 5y ago
    I believe they’re replying to GP’s assertment to stop using smartphones. > If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Yes I understand and the comment was using an example of heroin being illegal due to it's addictive nature as a comparison to just stopping cellphone usage. Ergo, I assume they were trying to suggest laws banning smart phones for people or limiting their usage is necessary. My stance is that is not the appropriate measure.
      - go_elmo 5y ago
        Have you read the parent comment? Not the smartphone needs regulation but services applying behavioural psychology to foster use time which imply addiction risks. The irony was about addiction. It cant be discussed away, just as heroin addiction. Thats why its called addiction and not bad habit.
        CountDrewku 5y ago
        >If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone. I don't have a smartphone myself and I am not interested in getting one. But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. >Youre right. If you dont like heroin just stop using it. Its easy and just a personal decision nothing more, right? Show me where either of these comments say this please... >Have you read the parent comment? Not the smartphone needs regulation but services applying behavioural psychology to foster use time which imply addiction risks. You're missing the point. There's no difference in regulating the smartphone vs. the apps. My point still stands. Either way you're putting regulation in place for the few that are unable to handle themselves and punishing the people that have self control. It is not the role of a democratic government to inhibit personal choice and force morals on people. Unless, of course, you prefer the authoritarian style of government.

by erfgh 5y ago

Damogran6 5y ago

The 'I don't even HAVE a TV' trope. It demonstrates a lack of empathy, that because YOU don't have a problem, a significant percentage of the population might not be in a different situation.

godshatter 5y ago
Some of us saw it coming and nipped it in the bud, or saw what it was doing to us and did something about it. I cut the cable 20 years ago or so after wasting one weekend flipping through channels, not finding anything I liked, and realized it was a problem and took steps to mitigate it. Same story with FB - a friend got me into Farm Town when that was a thing and I realized I had the choice to make that my life for the foreseeable future or nope out of it. I'm not the OP, but when I suggest that someone walk away from FB or whatever is causing them problems at the moment and let them know that I did the same, it's supposed to let them know that they do have choices and that it is possible for some people to be able to do that, so maybe they should try it? It's not a lack of empathy, it's a suggestion on how to get out of a problem I very much empathize with. Of course not everyone can. I have my own problems I consistently fail to nope out of, too.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Perhaps I've not expressed myself clearly. It's not about the smartphone. Smartphones are a red herring. They're not the problem. The problem are some particular services accessible through that phone.

dahfizz 5y ago

> But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. Where is the line? I don't like murder. Is banning murder totalitarian? I don't like unfair elections. Is banning election tampering totalitarian? Every law and rule in all of society exists to prevent something that someone (or lots of people) don't like. We usually draw abstractions on top of these likes and dislikes - things like "rights" and "morals". Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, so deriding someone for drawing that line "because you don't like it" is reductionist and silly.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Typically you place the line at hurting someone else. If your own personal choice only affects you then that's a you problem. To go the next step and take freedoms away from people that are able to handle themselves. The two examples you gave directly affect others. One exception might be children since they aren't developed enough to make logical decisions on their own. IMO government restrictions should be a last resort, not the first option you consider. Additionally, they tend not to work as well as you might think on many things (e.g. drug war, prohibition)
bloqs 5y ago
The line is: what does societies weakest member look like. How do we stop those people being exploited. You then apply the action to everyone above that point.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  That's your line. Clearly this is not universally accepted as the best way to form a society.
  - billiam 5y ago
    I think we have a lot of examples of what happens when the wealthy and powerful get anything they want (see the right of kings, predestination, Social Darwinism, fascism, etc) and we blame the poor and weak for all their problems and victimize them. There is a big difference between making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness available to most vulnerable and disadvantaged in your society and "forming" your society around it. In the US we only made basic rights we take for granted available under law to gay and disabled people in the last two of three decades.

go_elmo 5y ago

Youre right. If you dont like heroin just stop using it. Its easy and just a personal decision nothing more, right?

CountDrewku 5y ago
Are you suggesting that making heroin illegal has stopped its usage? Strange since it's currently an epidemic.
- wyre 5y ago
  I believe they’re replying to GP’s assertment to stop using smartphones. > If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Yes I understand and the comment was using an example of heroin being illegal due to it's addictive nature as a comparison to just stopping cellphone usage. Ergo, I assume they were trying to suggest laws banning smart phones for people or limiting their usage is necessary. My stance is that is not the appropriate measure.
    - go_elmo 5y ago
      Have you read the parent comment? Not the smartphone needs regulation but services applying behavioural psychology to foster use time which imply addiction risks. The irony was about addiction. It cant be discussed away, just as heroin addiction. Thats why its called addiction and not bad habit.
      - CountDrewku 5y ago
        >If you don't want to spend time on a smartphone, don't spend time on a smartphone. I don't have a smartphone myself and I am not interested in getting one. But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. >Youre right. If you dont like heroin just stop using it. Its easy and just a personal decision nothing more, right? Show me where either of these comments say this please... >Have you read the parent comment? Not the smartphone needs regulation but services applying behavioural psychology to foster use time which imply addiction risks. You're missing the point. There's no difference in regulating the smartphone vs. the apps. My point still stands. Either way you're putting regulation in place for the few that are unable to handle themselves and punishing the people that have self control. It is not the role of a democratic government to inhibit personal choice and force morals on people. Unless, of course, you prefer the authoritarian style of government.