3 ms·

> who want to strongly regulate and potentially dismantle these orgs. That’s democracy Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution

> who want to strongly regulate and potentially dismantle these orgs. That’s democracy Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy. That's just a hired bully. > others seek the same harm reduction You're free to reduce your own harm. You are not free to prescriptively dictate an acceptable level of harm to others. > targeting vulnerable humans. All those other things you mentioned need well marketed and broadly advertised lies to function. Why do you suppose social media does not need the same? Aside from that wouldn't your goal to make humans less vulnerable? Or are we perennially going to bully everyone else over the imagined needs of this class while constantly ignoring the rest of their plight? "We don't care that you're vulnerable. We care that we can use you as an excuse to get what we want."

toomuchtodo 2y ago
We already regulate many things for harm, by age (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, recreational drugs), and broadly without regard to age (meth, fentanyl, etc). I think you are confused with regards to current state vs the way you wish the world was. The discussion is adding additional items to that regulatory list. > If something changes the pathways in our brains and damages our health — and if it does so to Americans on a vast scale — it should be regulated as a threat to public health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/03/regulating-out-of-the-social-media-health-crisis/ https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/03/regulatin... https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-me... https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-it-possible-to-become-addicted-to-social-media https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-it-possible-to-become-... It’s still democracy even when you aren't happy with the outcome. You got the vote. That’s the democracy part, not the winning.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > We already regulate many things for harm And are there any politicians who are making a career out of that advocacy? > I think you are confused with regards to current state I think you are confused about the context of the conversation vs. what you wish the conversation was. > The discussion is adding additional items to that regulatory list. And the items on that list and the proposed additions are _significantly_ different. In particular, most of those do not enjoy constitutional protections, and the proposed does. > It’s still democracy even when you aren't happy with the outcome The constitution would disagree with you. > You got the vote I'd rather have the rights that are guaranteed to me, and I would like to know that neither you nor your strongman politicians can take any of those away from me, regardless of how many slips of paper you manage to collect.
logicchains 2y ago
>Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy It is democracy; democracy is mob rule. That's why the US is a republic, not a pure democracy.
margalabargala 2y ago
> Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy. That's just a hired bully. As the constitution does not grant freedom from regulation to corporations, regulating corporations is well within the powers granted to states by the 10th amendment of the constitution. > You're free to reduce your own harm. You are not free to prescriptively dictate an acceptable level of harm to others. Again, if a society (city, county, state, etc) votes to do so, they are in fact free to do so. If a society agrees that a person is causing harm to others, then that person is fined, locked up, or (in some states) executed in an attempt to both cease the harm and punish them for causing the harm. If a person such as yourself doesn't like the above, there isn't anything keeping you in that society except the benefits you gain from being a part of the society.
itishappy 2y ago
> Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy. Elected officials proposing new legislation is pretty firmly within the bounds of the constitution. Is there something specific you object to?

toomuchtodo 2y ago

We already regulate many things for harm, by age (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, recreational drugs), and broadly without regard to age (meth, fentanyl, etc). I think you are confused with regards to current state vs the way you wish the world was. The discussion is adding additional items to that regulatory list. > If something changes the pathways in our brains and damages our health — and if it does so to Americans on a vast scale — it should be regulated as a threat to public health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/03/regulating-out-of-the-social-media-health-crisis/ https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/03/regulatin... https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-me... https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-it-possible-to-become-addicted-to-social-media https://health.clevelandclinic.org/is-it-possible-to-become-... It’s still democracy even when you aren't happy with the outcome. You got the vote. That’s the democracy part, not the winning.

akira2501 2y ago
> We already regulate many things for harm And are there any politicians who are making a career out of that advocacy? > I think you are confused with regards to current state I think you are confused about the context of the conversation vs. what you wish the conversation was. > The discussion is adding additional items to that regulatory list. And the items on that list and the proposed additions are _significantly_ different. In particular, most of those do not enjoy constitutional protections, and the proposed does. > It’s still democracy even when you aren't happy with the outcome The constitution would disagree with you. > You got the vote I'd rather have the rights that are guaranteed to me, and I would like to know that neither you nor your strongman politicians can take any of those away from me, regardless of how many slips of paper you manage to collect.

logicchains 2y ago

>Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy It is democracy; democracy is mob rule. That's why the US is a republic, not a pure democracy.

margalabargala 2y ago

> Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy. That's just a hired bully. As the constitution does not grant freedom from regulation to corporations, regulating corporations is well within the powers granted to states by the 10th amendment of the constitution. > You're free to reduce your own harm. You are not free to prescriptively dictate an acceptable level of harm to others. Again, if a society (city, county, state, etc) votes to do so, they are in fact free to do so. If a society agrees that a person is causing harm to others, then that person is fined, locked up, or (in some states) executed in an attempt to both cease the harm and punish them for causing the harm. If a person such as yourself doesn't like the above, there isn't anything keeping you in that society except the benefits you gain from being a part of the society.

itishappy 2y ago

> Voting for someone who intends to exceed the bounds of the constitution is not democracy. Elected officials proposing new legislation is pretty firmly within the bounds of the constitution. Is there something specific you object to?