4 ms·
I don’t think you understand, widespread organized media campaigns were pretty successful with smoking, which is physically and chemically addictive, but that’s
by iamnothere 9mo ago
I don’t think you understand, widespread organized media campaigns were pretty successful with smoking, which is physically and chemically addictive, but that’s different because with smoking we were willing to put in some effort. Not possible here.
- bmacho 9mo agoYou are right, I definitely do not understand. My views: - moderate amount of Internet is *not harmful* for children - parents, in most of the cases *can* control excessive amount of usage - governments haven't tried educating the children and their parents yet. (Or any other method) - instead they are banning the kids from the Internet and deanonymise adults I am not happy about this.
- Braxton1980 9mo ago>governments haven't tried educating the children and their parents yet. (Or any other method) Can you explain what this means? Are people not aware that the Internet can be dangerous for children? Probably everyone thinks this so what else does the government need to educate? What about the significant amount of people who don't trust the government
- Braxton1980 9mo agoThey banned sales of cigarettes to people under 18
- iamnothere 9mo agoAnd yet underage smoking was still common until a decade later when focused campaigns lowered the attractiveness of smoking. Age bans never really worked.