3 ms·
Am I alone in thinking this is batshit crazy on a multidimensional fractal of levels? What possible standing does a school have in the relation between students
by perihelions 3y ago
Am I alone in thinking this is batshit crazy on a multidimensional fractal of levels? What possible standing does a school have in the relation between students and a third-party website? What possible resolution could one ask for, that doesn't trod all over the First Amendment like a rabid horse with muddy hooves? Also, how is "internet causes mental health issues" even an acceptable cause of action? It's just people speaking freely with each other. To say that's a "crisis" is to utterly reject the free-society value that people speak freely with each other, that that's everyone's inalienable, unquestionable right. It's unvarnished authoritarianism.
(And yet again, if people are contemplating this direction of authoritarian control, it's simply because they perceive a small crisis, and don't know how else to answer it besides brute force. (But all of civilization is a series of little emergencies; if you start thinking in policy in terms of emergency measures, you'll never have normality again)).
- paulcole 3y agoit’s political grandstanding by someone who wants to run for office
- ineedausername 3y agoWere do you draw the line? What if social media design is malicious intentionaly and kids are so messed up that x school can't function anymore (hypothetically).
- ethanbond 3y agoWe have concepts like “the First Amendment” and “standing” and so on exclusively to build and maintain a strong society. All of these things are subject, at the end of the day, to the assessment of whether they are effective at preventing bad things and preserving good things. If, for example, 100% of people under the age of 18 commit suicide within one month of being on Instagram, these arguments correctly would not prevent action against Instagram. We’d simply find a way to prevent kids from going on IG while weakening as little as possible the First Amendment’s protections of things that are good for our society. The only point of debate here is where each individual draws the line. From my observation, it seems people who are close to children a lot (parents, teachers, medical professionals) have been screaming their fucking brains out about this problem in ever-increasing intensity for years and years. People who are not close to children (20-something year old tech workers and HN browsers) think it’s all made up.
- perihelions 3y ago- "exclusively to build and maintain a strong society" Human rights (i.e. freedom of speech) aren't utilitarian concepts for achieving some secondary end-goal, like a desired social outcome. They're an end-goal in themselves. That's the core value judgement of free societies: the recognition of human dignity, human autonomy, as an *intrinsic* moral good to be protected at great cost.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat belief persists because it’s good at building strong societies
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mrweasel 3y agoAssuming that the schools are correct and social media companies are harming the mental health of children, then it should be the health authorities doing the suing. The schools are to a large extend the organisations having to deal with the mental health issues, so it is affecting their budgets and ability to do their job, that could constitute them suing for being imposed an unreasonable burden by a private companys business practices. Maybe... I'm not a lawyer, it might also be as simple as "It needs to be done and no one else seems to care".
- Nasrudith 3y agoNo you're not, although the zeitgeist is annoyingly against you. The same bullshit they rolled their eyes at as a kid they accept uncritically replayed as an adult. Most notably they didn't come up with that conclusion on their own after maturing, but by following demagogues and propaganda-documentaries.