3 ms·

The EFF's response to the op ed is worth a read [0]. I happen to firmly disagree with the scientific part of their analysis—the contradictory evidence they cite

The EFF's response to the op ed is worth a read [0]. I happen to firmly disagree with the scientific part of their analysis—the contradictory evidence they cite basically amount to "teens say social media is good for them", which is... questionable evidence at best. But aside from that they do make some important points about the First Amendment problems. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/no-online-speech-should-not-have-warning-labels https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/no-online-speech-shoul...

yieldcrv 2y ago
Although it can be a regulation on interstate commerce, the way the US government got around other First Amendment problems with similar warnings was through settlements That would render this debate moot until other social networks got popular Looking forward to it
rramadass 2y ago
The EFF is wrong here; they are neglecting all the Science we have today on how "Operant Conditioning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning) based on our current knowledge of Neurobiology can be used to great effect in many dimensions using various techniques. This phrase from the article; Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, is completely wrong. Ideas spread through language/platforms can be dangerous in the physical world eg. Islamic Fundamentalism/Terrorism. While there must be freedom of speech it cannot be anything goes and must be regulated in particular for those sections of society who have not yet attained "Maturity" both biologically and psychologically viz. Children/Teens.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I agree on the science, they're wrong there. But I disagree that speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods. Yes, there are real dangers, but I see the danger of regulating speech as even higher. If a majority vote is all it takes to regulate away a piece of speech, then the majority will be able rapidly consolidate itself and never give way to an alternative perspective. Regulating speech allows for a temporary majority to become a permanent one, which can be very dangerous for any society. Given that risk we need to be extremely careful about any effort by governments to regulate speech, even for causes that we happen to agree with today.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    I am not saying "speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods." You have to look at the context and case-by-case basis. Thus the insidious and deleterious effects of Social Media should not be disputed/argued but only the level of regulations should be debated/discussed. Free Speech is always limited eg. I should be able to say whatever i want about the President but cannot call for his Assassination (except in very rare cases like bloodthirsty dictators/warlords/etc.) Same is the case with majority vote in a democracy, the President is given certain overarching powers like veto/presidential decree etc. which allows him to overrule the majority in exceptional cases. The point here is the need to act now by imposing some basic level of regulations on Social Media and then work on fine-tuning it over time.
styxfrix 2y ago
Yeah. I've donated hundreds of dollars to the EFF, but cancelled my recurring donation after reading the EFF's response to that article because I believe the world would be a better place without social media. As you said, the EFF's article lacked scientific rigor - and its dismissal of non-physical harm sat especially poorly with me. I don't regret my previous donations to the EFF and still agree with their overall mission, but I can no longer support them.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  That's an odd take. So because you don't like something, you want it to be gone? I'm not sure you actually understood the EFFs goals ? I'm not trying to be rude but it just doesn't make sense to me. Some people don't like encryption, or porn. The eff always campaigned for keeping those things from getting restricted.
  - styxfrix 2y ago
    I think that something causes widespread harm and so I want that thing more regulated. If the EFF's article only touched on the First Amendment problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with them - it's the other parts which sat poorly with me. I believe that social media's desire and displayed ability to gain, maintain, and control people's attention is dangerous and that the government should highly regulate that danger. I continue to support free speech, including free speech on those platforms.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Although it can be a regulation on interstate commerce, the way the US government got around other First Amendment problems with similar warnings was through settlements That would render this debate moot until other social networks got popular Looking forward to it

rramadass 2y ago

The EFF is wrong here; they are neglecting all the Science we have today on how "Operant Conditioning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning) based on our current knowledge of Neurobiology can be used to great effect in many dimensions using various techniques. This phrase from the article; Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, is completely wrong. Ideas spread through language/platforms can be dangerous in the physical world eg. Islamic Fundamentalism/Terrorism. While there must be freedom of speech it cannot be anything goes and must be regulated in particular for those sections of society who have not yet attained "Maturity" both biologically and psychologically viz. Children/Teens.

lolinder 2y ago
I agree on the science, they're wrong there. But I disagree that speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods. Yes, there are real dangers, but I see the danger of regulating speech as even higher. If a majority vote is all it takes to regulate away a piece of speech, then the majority will be able rapidly consolidate itself and never give way to an alternative perspective. Regulating speech allows for a temporary majority to become a permanent one, which can be very dangerous for any society. Given that risk we need to be extremely careful about any effort by governments to regulate speech, even for causes that we happen to agree with today.
- rramadass 2y ago
  I am not saying "speech shouldn't be afforded more protections than unsafe physical goods." You have to look at the context and case-by-case basis. Thus the insidious and deleterious effects of Social Media should not be disputed/argued but only the level of regulations should be debated/discussed. Free Speech is always limited eg. I should be able to say whatever i want about the President but cannot call for his Assassination (except in very rare cases like bloodthirsty dictators/warlords/etc.) Same is the case with majority vote in a democracy, the President is given certain overarching powers like veto/presidential decree etc. which allows him to overrule the majority in exceptional cases. The point here is the need to act now by imposing some basic level of regulations on Social Media and then work on fine-tuning it over time.

styxfrix 2y ago

Yeah. I've donated hundreds of dollars to the EFF, but cancelled my recurring donation after reading the EFF's response to that article because I believe the world would be a better place without social media. As you said, the EFF's article lacked scientific rigor - and its dismissal of non-physical harm sat especially poorly with me. I don't regret my previous donations to the EFF and still agree with their overall mission, but I can no longer support them.

mardifoufs 2y ago
That's an odd take. So because you don't like something, you want it to be gone? I'm not sure you actually understood the EFFs goals ? I'm not trying to be rude but it just doesn't make sense to me. Some people don't like encryption, or porn. The eff always campaigned for keeping those things from getting restricted.
- styxfrix 2y ago
  I think that something causes widespread harm and so I want that thing more regulated. If the EFF's article only touched on the First Amendment problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with them - it's the other parts which sat poorly with me. I believe that social media's desire and displayed ability to gain, maintain, and control people's attention is dangerous and that the government should highly regulate that danger. I continue to support free speech, including free speech on those platforms.