3 ms·

Meta == Phillip Morris - This is a public health issue and will likely need to be treated like tobacco. Kids can't vote so I don't see the political motivation.

josho 10mo ago
Good analogy. The solution, however, isn't prohibition or age restrictions; it's either regulating the algorithms or holding these companies responsible for the adverse outcomes their platforms contribute to. Safe harbor laws made sense when tech wasn't filtering/promoting content, now that they are influencing the material we see, these laws must no longer apply. This may mean adopting a modern equivalent to libel laws. Something akin to: if an algorithm pushes false information, the company behind the algorithm can be sued for harm. Disallow terms of service that force arbitration or cap liability limits.
- thfuran 10mo ago
  I think the solution is banning accepting compensation for third party advertising.
  - qu4z-2 10mo ago
    I know all the reasons it "wouldn't work", but I'd love to see somewhere try this.
- strangattractor 10mo ago
  I dislike banning things as much as the next person. I have raised a kid though. I know parents that have limited their children's access to social media and gaming. The children seem less anxious and have longer attention spans in my anecdotal opinion. I am for punishing companies that seem to think it is ok to be socially irresponsible if profitable;)
JohnMakin 10mo ago
They'll vote eventually, and preferably won't be damaged in irreparable ways by then
lisbbb 10mo ago
I just can't get behind any of it, sorry. The puritanical moralizing feels so good until you cause a revolution or the species goes extinct.
- Dylan16807 10mo ago
  Any of it? You can't get behind cigarette bans for kids?
- roguecoder 10mo ago
  Social media has caused at least two genocides so far, and their data centers and AI slop are helping drive us towards an earth incapable of supporting human life. So what you are describing is just the base case.
- strangattractor 10mo ago
  Isn't treating it as a health issue the opposite of "puritanical moralizing"? No one suggested placing a Scarlet S around their necks. It really isn't a bad thing for kids to be told they can't do something occasionally. It kind of helps prepare them for being an adult where it happens all the time.
cmxch 10mo ago
Handwaving “public health” doesn’t make it so.
- roguecoder 10mo ago
  Suppressing the evidence of it doesn't make it not so: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/meta-project-mercury-shutdown-legal-filings-mental-health-harm-13953601.html https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/meta-project-mercury-sh...
roguecoder 10mo ago
That makes me wonder, if only teenagers could vote would they ban adults from social media?
- strangattractor 10mo ago
  Social media is not good for adults either. Being able to choose your vices is one of the privileges we give to adults. When I was 18 the legal drinking age had just been reduced to 18. That only lasted a couple of years. I don't think I'd vote for lowering it to that age again actually.

josho 10mo ago

Good analogy. The solution, however, isn't prohibition or age restrictions; it's either regulating the algorithms or holding these companies responsible for the adverse outcomes their platforms contribute to. Safe harbor laws made sense when tech wasn't filtering/promoting content, now that they are influencing the material we see, these laws must no longer apply. This may mean adopting a modern equivalent to libel laws. Something akin to: if an algorithm pushes false information, the company behind the algorithm can be sued for harm. Disallow terms of service that force arbitration or cap liability limits.

thfuran 10mo ago
I think the solution is banning accepting compensation for third party advertising.
- qu4z-2 10mo ago
  I know all the reasons it "wouldn't work", but I'd love to see somewhere try this.
strangattractor 10mo ago
I dislike banning things as much as the next person. I have raised a kid though. I know parents that have limited their children's access to social media and gaming. The children seem less anxious and have longer attention spans in my anecdotal opinion. I am for punishing companies that seem to think it is ok to be socially irresponsible if profitable;)

JohnMakin 10mo ago

They'll vote eventually, and preferably won't be damaged in irreparable ways by then

lisbbb 10mo ago

I just can't get behind any of it, sorry. The puritanical moralizing feels so good until you cause a revolution or the species goes extinct.

Dylan16807 10mo ago
Any of it? You can't get behind cigarette bans for kids?
roguecoder 10mo ago
Social media has caused at least two genocides so far, and their data centers and AI slop are helping drive us towards an earth incapable of supporting human life. So what you are describing is just the base case.
strangattractor 10mo ago
Isn't treating it as a health issue the opposite of "puritanical moralizing"? No one suggested placing a Scarlet S around their necks. It really isn't a bad thing for kids to be told they can't do something occasionally. It kind of helps prepare them for being an adult where it happens all the time.

cmxch 10mo ago

Handwaving “public health” doesn’t make it so.

roguecoder 10mo ago
Suppressing the evidence of it doesn't make it not so: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/meta-project-mercury-shutdown-legal-filings-mental-health-harm-13953601.html https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/meta-project-mercury-sh...

roguecoder 10mo ago

That makes me wonder, if only teenagers could vote would they ban adults from social media?

strangattractor 10mo ago
Social media is not good for adults either. Being able to choose your vices is one of the privileges we give to adults. When I was 18 the legal drinking age had just been reduced to 18. That only lasted a couple of years. I don't think I'd vote for lowering it to that age again actually.