3 ms·

> I don't think we should normalise children on platforms where the content contains political agitation, sexual and violent content, crypto and fintech scams,

> I don't think we should normalise children on platforms where the content contains political agitation, sexual and violent content, crypto and fintech scams, etc. Especially when this content is packaged up to them and commodified. This may be true but it has nothing to do with what the person you are replying to said.

biophysboy 11mo ago
The original comment suggests that the policy is politically motivated. The commenter replied with other reasons for the policy other than political agitation. I think its a valid response. I also don't buy the implied claim from the original commenter that age-limits are paternalistic/suppressive with regard to political thought/speech. Large tech platforms control political thought/speech on a regular basis, a lot of which is executed by state actors. Even in the absence of devious actors, algorithms are editorial by nature; they are not neutral infrastructure by any means.
- colordrops 11mo ago
  No, sorry, it's orthogonal to the poster's comment, which states that, regardless of merit, the purpose of the ban is political. Arguing for or against it is beside the point. Perhaps the original comment should have been more direct in and just said that Zionists are the ones pushing for these bans. The head of the ADL has made comments about this. A video by Sarah Hurwitz, Obama's speechwriter, went viral recently about how social media needs to be banned for young people because it's hurting the zionist movement. https://x.com/jennineak/status/1992395176283922767 https://x.com/jennineak/status/1992395176283922767
  - biophysboy 11mo ago
    The head of the ADL is a firehose of stupidity; that does not mean he controls policy. I also reject the pretense that public opinion of Israel would be higher among teens without social media, given their actions over the past few years.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - Sevrene 11mo ago
    I think this is a bit of a conspiracy colordrops, honestly. It's the same sort of stuff as on Infowars.
    - colordrops 11mo ago
      Is that all you got? Ad hominem?
      - Sevrene 11mo ago
        No sorry it wasn't a dig at you: the video was posted by someone who appears on Alex Jones' Infowars, talks jewish conspiracies. I just don't take that stuff seriously, doesn't make it wrong and if there's an argument you want to make I'll listen.
        colordrops 11mo ago
        That video was literally posted by hundreds of accounts. I just picked the first one I found in search. And exactly how is "Jennine K" anything like Infowars? Did you even bother to look? Do you want me to find the exact same video from a "reputable" account? Can you address the contents of the video? It's direct and unedited, her exact words. I assume you are a Zionist, based on your rhetorical techniques.
        Sevrene 11mo ago
        Zionism is when healthy information choices? I don’t trust infowars, sorry but that’s served me quite well over the years. I did look, you’re being obtuse again, after all how else would I know it’s from an infowars adjacent account. You strike me as the type of person who thinks e-safety commissioner is CIA, they also call me a zionist for doubting that- it’s the goto ad hominem for people embroiled with I/P conflict. This sort of social media bs and the way it affects political discourse is why social media is so damaging, much of it is just political propaganda. Tell me what do you take from the clip?
        11mo ago
Sevrene 11mo ago
> 1: "I get the feeling this has nothing to do with preventing harms" > 2: "heres the harms and why I think we should prevent them" Not trying to be rude here colordrops but I think you're being a too obtuse here, especially when the original person's comment was basically just "I don't trust them" (which is totally fair), I would rather engage in a good faith discussion of our opinions. > This may be true Do you think it's true?

biophysboy 11mo ago

The original comment suggests that the policy is politically motivated. The commenter replied with other reasons for the policy other than political agitation. I think its a valid response. I also don't buy the implied claim from the original commenter that age-limits are paternalistic/suppressive with regard to political thought/speech. Large tech platforms control political thought/speech on a regular basis, a lot of which is executed by state actors. Even in the absence of devious actors, algorithms are editorial by nature; they are not neutral infrastructure by any means.

colordrops 11mo ago
No, sorry, it's orthogonal to the poster's comment, which states that, regardless of merit, the purpose of the ban is political. Arguing for or against it is beside the point. Perhaps the original comment should have been more direct in and just said that Zionists are the ones pushing for these bans. The head of the ADL has made comments about this. A video by Sarah Hurwitz, Obama's speechwriter, went viral recently about how social media needs to be banned for young people because it's hurting the zionist movement. https://x.com/jennineak/status/1992395176283922767 https://x.com/jennineak/status/1992395176283922767
- biophysboy 11mo ago
  The head of the ADL is a firehose of stupidity; that does not mean he controls policy. I also reject the pretense that public opinion of Israel would be higher among teens without social media, given their actions over the past few years.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- Sevrene 11mo ago
  I think this is a bit of a conspiracy colordrops, honestly. It's the same sort of stuff as on Infowars.
  - colordrops 11mo ago
    Is that all you got? Ad hominem?
    - Sevrene 11mo ago
      No sorry it wasn't a dig at you: the video was posted by someone who appears on Alex Jones' Infowars, talks jewish conspiracies. I just don't take that stuff seriously, doesn't make it wrong and if there's an argument you want to make I'll listen.
      - colordrops 11mo ago
        That video was literally posted by hundreds of accounts. I just picked the first one I found in search. And exactly how is "Jennine K" anything like Infowars? Did you even bother to look? Do you want me to find the exact same video from a "reputable" account? Can you address the contents of the video? It's direct and unedited, her exact words. I assume you are a Zionist, based on your rhetorical techniques.
        Sevrene 11mo ago
        Zionism is when healthy information choices? I don’t trust infowars, sorry but that’s served me quite well over the years. I did look, you’re being obtuse again, after all how else would I know it’s from an infowars adjacent account. You strike me as the type of person who thinks e-safety commissioner is CIA, they also call me a zionist for doubting that- it’s the goto ad hominem for people embroiled with I/P conflict. This sort of social media bs and the way it affects political discourse is why social media is so damaging, much of it is just political propaganda. Tell me what do you take from the clip?
        11mo ago

Sevrene 11mo ago

> 1: "I get the feeling this has nothing to do with preventing harms" > 2: "heres the harms and why I think we should prevent them" Not trying to be rude here colordrops but I think you're being a too obtuse here, especially when the original person's comment was basically just "I don't trust them" (which is totally fair), I would rather engage in a good faith discussion of our opinions. > This may be true Do you think it's true?