4 ms·
I'm very critical of all the schemes proposed but this is just a fundamental misconception on your part. > If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from
by athrowaway3z 9mo ago
I'm very critical of all the schemes proposed but this is just a fundamental misconception on your part.
> If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet
As with any disease, the impact heavily depends on virality.
The worst the internet has to offer to children, is not the gore or porn for the few that look for it (usually individually).
The worst it does to children is the attention algorithm that captures practically everybody.
- pfdietz 9mo ago"But think of the children" has always been the go-to excuse for tossing freedom out the window.
- Noaidi 9mo agoSo in this case, do we just stop thinking about the children in totality?
- slavik81 9mo agoIf manipulative algorithm are the problem, then perhaps we should consider regulations that would protect everyone.
- XorNot 9mo agoExactly. The problem is no one wants to address that maybe some of these business models just need to go extinct. Like maybe ad supported infinite feeds can't be done in a socially responsible way and just need to be banned. If that takes down or substantially limits certain web service sizes...so be it.
- rudhdb773b 9mo agoIn the context of government legislation on personal behavior, yes. Parents should be the ones setting up rules for their children.
- hn_throwaway_99 9mo agoWhile I agree with this, I also find that the "but think of the children" ironic retort also usually ignores the very real problems that technology can cause children (and society at large). In this issue in particular, if banning social media for children makes it less likely for adults to use it, I see it as pretty much a win-win.
- rudhdb773b 9mo agoWould you also want the government to ban junk food and recreational drugs? What about unprotected premarital sex? I'd much rather live in a society with personal freedoms than a "healthier" one with government mandates on personal behavior.
- hn_throwaway_99 9mo agoLiterally every society mandates tons of restrictions for children, because we understand that children aren't yet developed enough to be able to understand the full consequences of personal freedoms.
- rudhdb773b 9mo agoI agree that children need restrictions, but that's the role of their parents, not the government.
- GreenWatermelon 9mo agoShould it also be the Role of parents to prevent their children from being kidnapped by crime syndicates? Maybe we should also abolish schools because it should be the parent's role to educate their children. This individualistic line of thinking is downright insane. It's preposterous. We live in a fucking society, no one can do anything on their own. For God's sake parent's shouldn't be expected to fight alone against MULTI-FUCKING TRILLION CORPORATIONS. Fat load of help all that anti-regulation talk did when the current US Gov can just get all the data it wants from those megacorps. Yeah let's also abolish laws preventing sale of tobacco and alcohol to children. This will surely lead to a prosperous national. No wonder the US is collapsing as we speak.
- expedition32 9mo agoChildren are the survival of the species our DNA wires us to to protect them.
- machomaster 9mo agoThat's why people need to be especially careful when others try to use such effective methods of manipulation.