5 ms·

> opposition to what? This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I a

> opposition to what? This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I am white). I don't care what side of politics you are on... you know what opposition I am talking about. Whether you are for or against it. > not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Yes! Because otherwise the parents are brainwashing their kids into their viewpoint not allowing them to see the real world. This isn't a hard concept to understand here. I mean I am liberal and atheist. But even I have wondered if I ever have kids if I don't expose them to the choice of religion if that is brainwashing of its own. I may try to justify it with the harm that religion has caused, but I am still denying my kid another prospective that is different than my own. Edit: To clarify here. If this was a state that was not actively removing opposing viewpoints from their libraries and teachings than I may buy that they actually care about their kids. But it's not, it's Florida. The beacon of being scared of their kids knowing anything about the real world and daring to have compassion for someone different than them.

mrangle 3y ago
[flagged]
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I stand by what I said. And judging by the quite fascinating trend of voting up and down I am noticing on my comment most people understand exactly what I am referring too. Whether they agree with those actions or not.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    Let the record show that we all stand by what we said. Let it also show that absolutely everyone knows to what you are referring.
evantbyrne 3y ago
I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many avenues. Blocking teens from generally interacting with other people online certainly looks like a hamfisted attempt at ideological preservation. It won't work.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.
- mrangle 3y ago
  There's nothing hamfisted about monitoring what other adults say to teens (and younger) when alone. It falls under basic supervision of minors, in order to prevent abuse. Including abuse that abusers try to shoehorn in under the guise of noble cause. For example, like sexual grooming, cultic induction, political radicalization, etc. Anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult. I mean that in two fashions. The first is that it can be said in the presence of a guardian. If it can't be, that's a red flag for abusive and grooming behavior. Children have what is known as "guardians" for a reason. They are charged with making decisions for the child until that child is an adult. Which includes making decisions about steering them around abusive adults. Trying to circumvent that firewall is red flag behavior. Everyone who aims to do this should know how they are framing themselves. If an adult has something to say to children that is outside of the known school curriculum, then there is zero reason that it can't be said to their guardian at the same time. The second fashion that I mean the assertion that "anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult" is the following: If someone believes that what a parent teaches a child is misguided, then there is no reason whatsoever that their alternate presentation of facts cannot wait until the child is an adult. Assuming that their guardian wants to sheild them from that alternative view. Needing to present alternative views to a child, instead of an adult who is more capable of wieghing what they say, falls in the same category of suspicious red flag behavior. You may have appreciated the alternative views that you sought out as a child, but the truth is that you circumvented your parent's guardianship. And if your current views are valid or more valid, then they would have remained so once presented to you as an adult.
Shocka1 3y ago
I feel like you might be looking at this incorrectly. This is political of course given it's FL, but I'm attempting to look past that. The issue, which has been exhaustively studied by people like Jonathan Haidt and posted about on HN, is that there is great evidence that the underlying psychological impact and algorithms with social media platforms is having a negative effect on teenagers, especially females. Some of these studies have been shared right here on HN, but here is a link - from a mostly left leaning source just for you: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-... This isn't the same as the Yahoo chatroom or social media that some of us older people grew up with. We might as well compare apples to oranges. Does that mean we should ban it? I don't think it matters. My personal opinion is that stuff like this can't be stopped by a stroke of a pen or by whether you identify as left or right wing. 13 year old me didn't care about some checkbox asking if I was a certain age. The only thing that will stop this is for kids to not want to use social media - they have to think of it as not cool. Given the ever increasing sophistication of this type of software on a psychological level, I don't see that ever happening.

mrangle 3y ago

[flagged]

nerdjon 3y ago
I stand by what I said. And judging by the quite fascinating trend of voting up and down I am noticing on my comment most people understand exactly what I am referring too. Whether they agree with those actions or not.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Let the record show that we all stand by what we said. Let it also show that absolutely everyone knows to what you are referring.

evantbyrne 3y ago

I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many avenues. Blocking teens from generally interacting with other people online certainly looks like a hamfisted attempt at ideological preservation. It won't work.

nerdjon 3y ago
If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.
mrangle 3y ago
There's nothing hamfisted about monitoring what other adults say to teens (and younger) when alone. It falls under basic supervision of minors, in order to prevent abuse. Including abuse that abusers try to shoehorn in under the guise of noble cause. For example, like sexual grooming, cultic induction, political radicalization, etc. Anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult. I mean that in two fashions. The first is that it can be said in the presence of a guardian. If it can't be, that's a red flag for abusive and grooming behavior. Children have what is known as "guardians" for a reason. They are charged with making decisions for the child until that child is an adult. Which includes making decisions about steering them around abusive adults. Trying to circumvent that firewall is red flag behavior. Everyone who aims to do this should know how they are framing themselves. If an adult has something to say to children that is outside of the known school curriculum, then there is zero reason that it can't be said to their guardian at the same time. The second fashion that I mean the assertion that "anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult" is the following: If someone believes that what a parent teaches a child is misguided, then there is no reason whatsoever that their alternate presentation of facts cannot wait until the child is an adult. Assuming that their guardian wants to sheild them from that alternative view. Needing to present alternative views to a child, instead of an adult who is more capable of wieghing what they say, falls in the same category of suspicious red flag behavior. You may have appreciated the alternative views that you sought out as a child, but the truth is that you circumvented your parent's guardianship. And if your current views are valid or more valid, then they would have remained so once presented to you as an adult.

Shocka1 3y ago

I feel like you might be looking at this incorrectly. This is political of course given it's FL, but I'm attempting to look past that. The issue, which has been exhaustively studied by people like Jonathan Haidt and posted about on HN, is that there is great evidence that the underlying psychological impact and algorithms with social media platforms is having a negative effect on teenagers, especially females. Some of these studies have been shared right here on HN, but here is a link - from a mostly left leaning source just for you: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-... This isn't the same as the Yahoo chatroom or social media that some of us older people grew up with. We might as well compare apples to oranges. Does that mean we should ban it? I don't think it matters. My personal opinion is that stuff like this can't be stopped by a stroke of a pen or by whether you identify as left or right wing. 13 year old me didn't care about some checkbox asking if I was a certain age. The only thing that will stop this is for kids to not want to use social media - they have to think of it as not cool. Given the ever increasing sophistication of this type of software on a psychological level, I don't see that ever happening.