3 ms·

There seem to be a lot of comments cluck-clucking about personal responsibility, and government intervention is bad, and the way this is written is off-putting,

There seem to be a lot of comments cluck-clucking about personal responsibility, and government intervention is bad, and the way this is written is off-putting, and- And no acknowledgment about how many on here can't really give an unqualified opinion because of where their paychecks originate. I can, though, and here it is: We've done this before, with cigarette companies, treating them with kid gloves and trying to avoid disrupting their business, and people kept getting sick and dying in droves until government finally acquiesced and committed to a full-court press. Laws making smoking inconvenient, and massive public service campaigns, and taxes, and more. You need to make a decision: are you going to continue building a livelihood off the suffering of your neighbors, and your family? Or are we going to do something about this, collectively?

ryandrake 3y ago
I think 100 years from now, we're going to look back at Social Media like we currently look back on child labor and cigarettes. "Why on earth didn't we regulate it earlier?" All the signs are there that this stuff is terrible, but we plug our ears and pretend people are rational and will do what's good for them, and insist on treating corporations with kid gloves because stock market must go up. HN has a thick, libertarian "everything government does is bad" streak running through it and we sit at a position of great privilege--the privilege of being well-off techies, having agency over our lives and the ability and choice to avoid things that are bad for us. So you're not going to get much sympathy from this crowd.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
It's really a pointed question, isn't it, but cigarettes, and alcohol, and gambling, and porn, these are recreational, optional pursuits. The smartphone and social communications are something which have been woven into the fabric of society, into our daily lives, our recreation and employment alike, our consumerism, our interaction with everyone, from government agencies to next-door neighbors alike. So unlike the dude standing in the "no smoking" section with a cigarette, this epidemic will require far more intestinal fortitude and introspection for us to ultimately confront as detrimental, and it will be far more difficult for us to extricate ourselves from its tentacles.
latency-guy2 3y ago
Let's get down to it, ban all the hazards, moral or otherwise. Lets start with taxing porn at 50%, on both ends. Anyone overweight? Slap them with a $7500 fine per pound over the limit, based solely on BMI because that is the only measure that congress can agree is general enough for all citizens. Jail everyone who even thinks about smoking. Alcohol? Well, well, prohibition 2.0, drink once, get sterilized. You need to make a decision: are you going to continue building a livelihood off the suffering of your neighbors, and your family? Or are we going to do something about this, collectively? Cluck cluck.
- weregiraffe 3y ago
  Sure, just convince enough people and you can make all these come true. Isn't democracy great?
tomjen3 3y ago
Do you want to ban phones in public or do you want to hit the social media companies? Because I would really hate it if I had to not use my phone to take pictures and do direction and listen to podcasts because some people spend too much time on Facebook.
- underlipton 3y ago
  The second seems more cogent.

ryandrake 3y ago

I think 100 years from now, we're going to look back at Social Media like we currently look back on child labor and cigarettes. "Why on earth didn't we regulate it earlier?" All the signs are there that this stuff is terrible, but we plug our ears and pretend people are rational and will do what's good for them, and insist on treating corporations with kid gloves because stock market must go up. HN has a thick, libertarian "everything government does is bad" streak running through it and we sit at a position of great privilege--the privilege of being well-off techies, having agency over our lives and the ability and choice to avoid things that are bad for us. So you're not going to get much sympathy from this crowd.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

It's really a pointed question, isn't it, but cigarettes, and alcohol, and gambling, and porn, these are recreational, optional pursuits. The smartphone and social communications are something which have been woven into the fabric of society, into our daily lives, our recreation and employment alike, our consumerism, our interaction with everyone, from government agencies to next-door neighbors alike. So unlike the dude standing in the "no smoking" section with a cigarette, this epidemic will require far more intestinal fortitude and introspection for us to ultimately confront as detrimental, and it will be far more difficult for us to extricate ourselves from its tentacles.

latency-guy2 3y ago

Let's get down to it, ban all the hazards, moral or otherwise. Lets start with taxing porn at 50%, on both ends. Anyone overweight? Slap them with a $7500 fine per pound over the limit, based solely on BMI because that is the only measure that congress can agree is general enough for all citizens. Jail everyone who even thinks about smoking. Alcohol? Well, well, prohibition 2.0, drink once, get sterilized. You need to make a decision: are you going to continue building a livelihood off the suffering of your neighbors, and your family? Or are we going to do something about this, collectively? Cluck cluck.

weregiraffe 3y ago
Sure, just convince enough people and you can make all these come true. Isn't democracy great?

tomjen3 3y ago

Do you want to ban phones in public or do you want to hit the social media companies? Because I would really hate it if I had to not use my phone to take pictures and do direction and listen to podcasts because some people spend too much time on Facebook.

underlipton 3y ago
The second seems more cogent.