4 ms·

> Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient. I

by palata 6mo ago

> Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient. I am not, AT ALL, saying that we should make bikes illegal to kids. But some things make sense to me: we should not sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids. "Go ahead my son, you're 13, you should make your own mistakes: try smoking for a month like your friends, and then I'll explain to you why it is a bad idea" is not how I apprehend "parenting". I am actually saying that it is nuanced, and that it is difficult to know where to put the limit. Should cocaine be allowed to kids? Cannabis? Cigarettes? Social media? Bikes? Chocolate? > So why are you treating social media like that? Maybe you think that social media are like bikes, and that's your right. I think they are closer to drugs. Maybe you think everything should be legal (drugs, killing, ...) and that "parenting" is the solution to all, I don't. Like cigarettes, the message is "you should never do it, but when you'll get older it will be your choice to do that stupid shit". That is obviously not how I treat bikes.

hnlmorg 6mo ago
The social media problem isn’t going to be solved by treating it like cigarettes. It’s solved by teaching kids how moderate their use of it. And that only comes with practice. So banning it for children and then expecting them to use it responsibly once they have access is unrealistic.
- palata 6mo ago
  I am not sure if you genuinely don't see what you miss or if you purposely ignore it because it helps your argument. Nobody says "we ban it for children and then expect them to use it responsibly". Just like for cigarettes. It's never responsible to smoke, it's just that we as a society choose to let adults stink and ruin their health if they want to. But for kids, we a society believe that they are vulnerable and may smoke without realising how stupid and unhealthy it is, so we want to protect them until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify preventing people from taking those stupid decisions. For social media it's exactly the same: the goal is to protect the children while they are vulnerable, until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify. Not that many (most?) adults are wasting a big part of their life swiping utterly stupid stuff on their smartphone, but banning social media for adults is a completely different discussion. The thing is, if a kid is the only one in their class to not have a smartphone or to not have access to social media, they are in an uncomfortable situation and that puts pressure on the parents to give them access to those, so that they can conform. A big part of being a kid is to conform: being an outlier is a risk. One reason for age verification is to prevent enough kids to access social media, such that "the norm" is suddenly not to have access to social media anymore. You can disagree with that, but at least you could acknowledge the argument instead of going around it and talking like if there was absolutely no way a sane person could imagine that banning social media for kids could ever be constructive.

by palata 6mo ago

hnlmorg 6mo ago

The social media problem isn’t going to be solved by treating it like cigarettes. It’s solved by teaching kids how moderate their use of it. And that only comes with practice. So banning it for children and then expecting them to use it responsibly once they have access is unrealistic.

palata 6mo ago
I am not sure if you genuinely don't see what you miss or if you purposely ignore it because it helps your argument. Nobody says "we ban it for children and then expect them to use it responsibly". Just like for cigarettes. It's never responsible to smoke, it's just that we as a society choose to let adults stink and ruin their health if they want to. But for kids, we a society believe that they are vulnerable and may smoke without realising how stupid and unhealthy it is, so we want to protect them until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify preventing people from taking those stupid decisions. For social media it's exactly the same: the goal is to protect the children while they are vulnerable, until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify. Not that many (most?) adults are wasting a big part of their life swiping utterly stupid stuff on their smartphone, but banning social media for adults is a completely different discussion. The thing is, if a kid is the only one in their class to not have a smartphone or to not have access to social media, they are in an uncomfortable situation and that puts pressure on the parents to give them access to those, so that they can conform. A big part of being a kid is to conform: being an outlier is a risk. One reason for age verification is to prevent enough kids to access social media, such that "the norm" is suddenly not to have access to social media anymore. You can disagree with that, but at least you could acknowledge the argument instead of going around it and talking like if there was absolutely no way a sane person could imagine that banning social media for kids could ever be constructive.