4 ms·
The problem is that it really is the 14-21 group that where it has the most (and increasing) influence. They should have banned it for under 18.
by foobiekr 6mo ago
The problem is that it really is the 14-21 group that where it has the most (and increasing) influence. They should have banned it for under 18.
- pjc50 6mo agoI'd prefer a ban for the over 65s, who are especially vulnerable.
- havaloc 6mo agoHowever bad you think 65+ users are on social media, it's way worse than you think. Imagine being scammed by ads and grinding the remaining years of your life away with that. Yikes. I've seen it with my own eyes. It's awful.
- pembrook 6mo agoI think we should ban all media for all ages, and force people to evaluate the world from first principles using more rational evaluation and distillation techniques like those found in LLMs. Age 25-65 Coastal elites with luxury beliefs are equally as vulnerable as over 65s, but they hold the levers of actual power, which is far more dangerous.
- pibaker 6mo agoIt will never happen because 65 yos vote and people under 18 cannot vote.
- 10xDev 6mo agoToday it will be <16, tomorrow 18. Doesn't really matter as long as the ball starts rolling. First it was indoor smoking, now it will be for everyone born after 2008 in the UK.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- PearlRiver 6mo agoThe sad truth is that we were actually winning the fight against smoking. Until the industry invented vapes.
- LanceH 6mo agoAs with any ban on anything, I would prefer that it start with the people who want it banned. So any advocates against social media and get off social media. Every politician and government employee in Norway should be off it. In general, if someone comes along and says that someone else's rights should be shrunk, I think they should give up those same rights first. You can just look at the US congress for how this isn't done as they frequently carve out exceptions for themselves and staffers.
- latexr 6mo agoBy that logic, no politician and government employee would be able to drive a car or have a job, since we also “ban” those for minors. We’re not talking about a lifetime ban on social media, the argument is certain kinds of things are gated from people under a certain age because we know those are harmful and can negatively impact your entire life going forward when not done conscientiously, and most people below a certain age do not yet possess the capacity to make an informed decision about their use.
- LanceH 6mo agoThe politicians could all divest from these companies for a start. Anyone they are responsible for could be forced off social media, etc... This is just another case of some people deciding other people are too dumb to handle themselves or their kids. Further, I believe formally blaming the media companies lets everyone off the hook for their own actions. In the general sense, Congress shouldn't be exempting itself from federal smoking bans, providing healthcare coverage, insider trading, lying before Congress, etc...
- npunt 6mo agoAt least this gives kids the chance to be kids and know a life without it before they encounter it. Many of us grew up in the offline-is-default time, but our cohort will age out. Then we’ll only be left with people who grew up with these technologies shaping their lives and perspectives, who have little sense for the alternative. The window of time is closing for us in this cohort to use our understanding of what life was like without these technologies to advocate for a healthier environment for kids.