4 ms·

> Screens need to be regulated like cigarettes, sooner rather than later. I also would prefer to see the average kid spend a lot less time on screens. Interest

> Screens need to be regulated like cigarettes, sooner rather than later. I also would prefer to see the average kid spend a lot less time on screens. Interestingly I have a totally different take on the "how" though. I don't thing regulation will do a damn thing in the long run, nor do I think we should accept the few people in charge making such a fundamental decision for us. We didn't need cigarette regulation, we needed informed consent. People choosing to smoke needed to know what the known risks were. Regulation of cigarettes themselves were a cop out when those in charge failed to hold cigarette companies liable for lying to the public. Had it not taken decades for the truth about what was known, and covered up, by cigarette companies we would have been in a much better spot in my opinion. What's that mean for screens? For starters, I'd say anyone in a leadership position at major tech companies that leverage their wealth and power to shield their own children from the very tech they sell to everyone else's kids should be held criminally liable. If, for example, major tech leaders happen to send their kids to private schools designed specifically to minimize screens and technology in the classroom, they damn well know its a problem and are keeping that from the public.

gizmo686 2y ago
So, instead of regulating the industry, you would to hold industry leaders criminally liable for how they operate in an unregulated industry?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  No, they'd be held liable for lying to the public about the risks of the products they are trying to sell. If you know smoking can cause cancer and decide to bury the research and lie, that's a huge problem. If you know it can cause cancer and make that clear, and people still decide to smoke anyway, what's the problem exactly? More importantly, we only know what industries to regulate and how to regulate them after the fact. When an industry, like the cigarette or oil industries, has first access to data that is damning of that industry and buries it, how do we know what to regulate? If we can only intervene after the fact anyway, my proposal is to hold accountable those who lied and buried evidence and educate the public on the newly discovered risks. Let people deicide for themselves once those risks are clear.
ta988 2y ago
This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in Europe). The only thing that really reduced consumption was when it became banned in public places and the prices increased beyond what most kids could afford (richer kids didn't care), but still compared to countries like US people are still smoking a lot there even nowadays.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?
  - ta988 2y ago
    Because addictions are hard to get off and it is not just a question of willingness? Most smokers tried to stop at least once. Because some people may have disabilities that may impede their ability to quit? Because of collective costs? Because of family costs?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Are regulations really the best answer for addictions though? My dad was an alcoholic and, unfortunately, died young and alone. No level of regulation would have helped him. Sure, when he could stay away from drinking he was better off during those periods. But his problem wasn't access to alcohol, his problem was an inability to deal with traumas going back to his childhood when his own dad, also an alcoholic, died even younger and left behind a widow and 6 young kids. I hope that anyone with an addiction can get whatever help they need to hold off their addiction long enough to discover and deal with the underlying problems manifesting as addiction. I also hope, though, that our concern for anyone with addiction doesn't lead us to think that forcing regulation on everyone and further growing the power of our governments is a brute force solution to problems much deeper than the symptom of addiction.

gizmo686 2y ago

So, instead of regulating the industry, you would to hold industry leaders criminally liable for how they operate in an unregulated industry?

_heimdall 2y ago
No, they'd be held liable for lying to the public about the risks of the products they are trying to sell. If you know smoking can cause cancer and decide to bury the research and lie, that's a huge problem. If you know it can cause cancer and make that clear, and people still decide to smoke anyway, what's the problem exactly? More importantly, we only know what industries to regulate and how to regulate them after the fact. When an industry, like the cigarette or oil industries, has first access to data that is damning of that industry and buries it, how do we know what to regulate? If we can only intervene after the fact anyway, my proposal is to hold accountable those who lied and buried evidence and educate the public on the newly discovered risks. Let people deicide for themselves once those risks are clear.

ta988 2y ago

This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in Europe). The only thing that really reduced consumption was when it became banned in public places and the prices increased beyond what most kids could afford (richer kids didn't care), but still compared to countries like US people are still smoking a lot there even nowadays.

_heimdall 2y ago
My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?
- ta988 2y ago
  Because addictions are hard to get off and it is not just a question of willingness? Most smokers tried to stop at least once. Because some people may have disabilities that may impede their ability to quit? Because of collective costs? Because of family costs?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Are regulations really the best answer for addictions though? My dad was an alcoholic and, unfortunately, died young and alone. No level of regulation would have helped him. Sure, when he could stay away from drinking he was better off during those periods. But his problem wasn't access to alcohol, his problem was an inability to deal with traumas going back to his childhood when his own dad, also an alcoholic, died even younger and left behind a widow and 6 young kids. I hope that anyone with an addiction can get whatever help they need to hold off their addiction long enough to discover and deal with the underlying problems manifesting as addiction. I also hope, though, that our concern for anyone with addiction doesn't lead us to think that forcing regulation on everyone and further growing the power of our governments is a brute force solution to problems much deeper than the symptom of addiction.