5 ms·

While both paternalism. Requiring safety features on a saw does not restrict free speech. It's more akin to seatbelt laws. It's also made to protect everyone w

While both paternalism. Requiring safety features on a saw does not restrict free speech. It's more akin to seatbelt laws. It's also made to protect everyone who uses a table saw and not just children. Imo, I do think social media needs to be reeled in by policy. But I can see why it makes people uncomfortable and why there is a difference with the saw.

Ekaros 3y ago
I wonder how many would be for seatbelt laws if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car Here is the problem: They didn't. So what is your point?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- red_admiral 3y ago
  I think this confuses cause and effect. Seatbelts are brought up so often precisely because they are an intervention with a huge benefit-to-cost ratio. Seatbelt laws were made long after the fact - seat belts for cars started to appear in the 1950s, with the common three-point variant in 1955; the first seatbelt law appeared in 1970 (in Australia). The US started introducing seatbelt laws for cars in the 1980s (though as far as I know, some organizations/insurers required them earlier for employees driving for business).
Capricorn2481 3y ago
How does not having social media restrict free speech? Do you think free speech didn't exist before social media? Arguably, the presence of social media homogenizes the speech we're allowed to have.
- eviks 3y ago
  It restricts free speech in the most direct, literal sense - by... restricting your ability to freely speak. The historical existence is simply irrelevant. Just like existence of pre-TV/newspaper speech is not a relevant factor in determining whether banning all TV/newspapers in 1950 restricts free speech
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    What access to tools or avenues for speech should fall under the first amendment then?
  - sammorrowdrums 3y ago
    Making publication easy on social media has certainly had an impact on public speech, but private platforms do not offer free speech by design. Naomi Klein went into this in No Logo with shopping malls replacing public spaces where you also don’t have a right to free speech and can be evicted arbitrarily at the owners discretion. You’ll find virtually all of social media platforms have moderation, usage policies and user banning practices that go well beyond allowing the fully legally protected free speech you are afforded in a public space (in many countries).
    - cnity 3y ago
      If all spaces that attract the majority of people are private and have homogenous terms of use, then free speech ends in all ways except on this technicality. Edit: removed unnecessarily inflammatory phrasing.
    - eviks 3y ago
      It (practically) doesn't matter what the moderation policies are, a legal ban on social networks will still be a restriction on free speech
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    This is a telling argument. Newspapers and television broadcasts, while geared towards broad public consumption, were never wholly democratized platforms and that didn't run afoul of the first amendment. It stands to reason that management of content on social media platforms or outright banning the same wouldn't either.
drawkward 3y ago
Which of Haidt's 4 suggestions restricts free speech? Is free speech (for adolescents) more important than the well-being of those same adolescents? Has American jurisprudence aligned on the notion that adolescents have an inviolable right to free speech?

Ekaros 3y ago

I wonder how many would be for seatbelt laws if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car.

throwaway2037 3y ago
> if the addition of seatbelts say doubled the price of car Here is the problem: They didn't. So what is your point?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
red_admiral 3y ago
I think this confuses cause and effect. Seatbelts are brought up so often precisely because they are an intervention with a huge benefit-to-cost ratio. Seatbelt laws were made long after the fact - seat belts for cars started to appear in the 1950s, with the common three-point variant in 1955; the first seatbelt law appeared in 1970 (in Australia). The US started introducing seatbelt laws for cars in the 1980s (though as far as I know, some organizations/insurers required them earlier for employees driving for business).

Capricorn2481 3y ago

How does not having social media restrict free speech? Do you think free speech didn't exist before social media? Arguably, the presence of social media homogenizes the speech we're allowed to have.

eviks 3y ago
It restricts free speech in the most direct, literal sense - by... restricting your ability to freely speak. The historical existence is simply irrelevant. Just like existence of pre-TV/newspaper speech is not a relevant factor in determining whether banning all TV/newspapers in 1950 restricts free speech
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  What access to tools or avenues for speech should fall under the first amendment then?
- sammorrowdrums 3y ago
  Making publication easy on social media has certainly had an impact on public speech, but private platforms do not offer free speech by design. Naomi Klein went into this in No Logo with shopping malls replacing public spaces where you also don’t have a right to free speech and can be evicted arbitrarily at the owners discretion. You’ll find virtually all of social media platforms have moderation, usage policies and user banning practices that go well beyond allowing the fully legally protected free speech you are afforded in a public space (in many countries).
  - cnity 3y ago
    If all spaces that attract the majority of people are private and have homogenous terms of use, then free speech ends in all ways except on this technicality. Edit: removed unnecessarily inflammatory phrasing.
  - eviks 3y ago
    It (practically) doesn't matter what the moderation policies are, a legal ban on social networks will still be a restriction on free speech
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  This is a telling argument. Newspapers and television broadcasts, while geared towards broad public consumption, were never wholly democratized platforms and that didn't run afoul of the first amendment. It stands to reason that management of content on social media platforms or outright banning the same wouldn't either.

drawkward 3y ago

Which of Haidt's 4 suggestions restricts free speech? Is free speech (for adolescents) more important than the well-being of those same adolescents? Has American jurisprudence aligned on the notion that adolescents have an inviolable right to free speech?