4 ms·

So many people here endorsing prohibition affecting everybody just because some folks aren't able to control themselves. I simply don't want the state to nanny

So many people here endorsing prohibition affecting everybody just because some folks aren't able to control themselves. I simply don't want the state to nanny me.

amarcheschi 5mo ago
People are complaining about products engineered to be as addictive as possible, we're talking about something more than simple self control
- raffael_de 5mo ago
  everybody has a choice to just uninstall apps, leave the phone at home, switch it off at 8pm etc. that's what it means to be an adult. some people get addicted to work or sports - people even died from it - should we ban that, too?
  - amarcheschi 5mo ago
    The article is discussing regulating the algorithms, not banning the social networks. Just like cigarettes and alcohol are regulated but not banned
bognition 5mo ago
> some folks aren't able to control themselves I get that there are some people who have anomalous abilities to self control, and i understand that they might have a hard time empathizing with those of us that dont have that level of control. However to chalk up the solution as be a better person, when in reality corporations are spending billions on research and design of addictive products is just short sighted. We saw the same thing with smoking. Plenty of people said "meh, why cant the smoker just quit, I did". Which missed the point. The tabacco companies knew if they could get kids smoking at a young age it was less likely they'd ever quit. Its naive to assume that the social media companies are not doing the exact same thing. Yes there is room for individual accountability, but also we need to be realistic about the amount of energy that is being spent subverting people's attention and self control.
- raffael_de 5mo ago
  you seem to believe that those companies hold some magical spell over people. that's exaggerating what is actually possible. all they can do is decide what you see on you feed and things like that. some people can't handle it. well, that is their loss ... it shouldn't be mine. and no, I couldn't care less if insta or tictac gets banned. the problem is that this is setting a precedent for a dystopic, nanny state where adults are treated like children. i don't want to live in such a society.
antonyt 5mo ago
I'm sympathetic to your point, but at some point other people ruining themselves degrades your experience as well. I don't gamble and in theory don't care if others do. But prediction markets are affecting sports and possibly governance as well in obviously negative ways. For this specific issue - the more functionally illiterate, zero-attention-span humans we create, the worse all of our lives will become.
- raffael_de 5mo ago
  there have always been losers, junkies and assholes. i'd rather have some of them but an entire society of adults brainwashed into wearing mental diapers.
  - ad_hockey 5mo ago
    (Assuming you meant "than" rather than "but") You could argue the opposite, it's social media that's creating a society of adults wearing mental diapers. This article is excellent: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-... And this is worth a skim: https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/internet-baby-boomers-misinformation-social-media_n_5f998039c5b6a4a2dc813d3d https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/internet-baby-boomers-m...
    - raffael_de 5mo ago
      are you a native speaker? i'd have made a bet that but works here just as well as than. anyway ... social media doesn't _make_ anybody wear mental diapers. maybe offers or sells but only government can make you wear them.
      - ad_hockey 5mo ago
        As you have it there, "but" would mean the latter is an unfortunate consequence or side-effect of the former, and you're getting both. Whereas "than" would mean you're getting the former and not the latter.

So many people here endorsing prohibition affecting everybody just because some folks aren't able to control themselves. I simply don't want the state to nanny me.

amarcheschi 5mo ago

People are complaining about products engineered to be as addictive as possible, we're talking about something more than simple self control

raffael_de 5mo ago
everybody has a choice to just uninstall apps, leave the phone at home, switch it off at 8pm etc. that's what it means to be an adult. some people get addicted to work or sports - people even died from it - should we ban that, too?
- amarcheschi 5mo ago
  The article is discussing regulating the algorithms, not banning the social networks. Just like cigarettes and alcohol are regulated but not banned

bognition 5mo ago

> some folks aren't able to control themselves I get that there are some people who have anomalous abilities to self control, and i understand that they might have a hard time empathizing with those of us that dont have that level of control. However to chalk up the solution as be a better person, when in reality corporations are spending billions on research and design of addictive products is just short sighted. We saw the same thing with smoking. Plenty of people said "meh, why cant the smoker just quit, I did". Which missed the point. The tabacco companies knew if they could get kids smoking at a young age it was less likely they'd ever quit. Its naive to assume that the social media companies are not doing the exact same thing. Yes there is room for individual accountability, but also we need to be realistic about the amount of energy that is being spent subverting people's attention and self control.

raffael_de 5mo ago
you seem to believe that those companies hold some magical spell over people. that's exaggerating what is actually possible. all they can do is decide what you see on you feed and things like that. some people can't handle it. well, that is their loss ... it shouldn't be mine. and no, I couldn't care less if insta or tictac gets banned. the problem is that this is setting a precedent for a dystopic, nanny state where adults are treated like children. i don't want to live in such a society.

antonyt 5mo ago

I'm sympathetic to your point, but at some point other people ruining themselves degrades your experience as well. I don't gamble and in theory don't care if others do. But prediction markets are affecting sports and possibly governance as well in obviously negative ways. For this specific issue - the more functionally illiterate, zero-attention-span humans we create, the worse all of our lives will become.

raffael_de 5mo ago
there have always been losers, junkies and assholes. i'd rather have some of them but an entire society of adults brainwashed into wearing mental diapers.
- ad_hockey 5mo ago
  (Assuming you meant "than" rather than "but") You could argue the opposite, it's social media that's creating a society of adults wearing mental diapers. This article is excellent: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-... And this is worth a skim: https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/internet-baby-boomers-misinformation-social-media_n_5f998039c5b6a4a2dc813d3d https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/internet-baby-boomers-m...
  - raffael_de 5mo ago
    are you a native speaker? i'd have made a bet that but works here just as well as than. anyway ... social media doesn't _make_ anybody wear mental diapers. maybe offers or sells but only government can make you wear them.
    - ad_hockey 5mo ago
      As you have it there, "but" would mean the latter is an unfortunate consequence or side-effect of the former, and you're getting both. Whereas "than" would mean you're getting the former and not the latter.