4 ms·
The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their par
by philipallstar 2mo ago
The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.
- lostlogin 2mo agoGovernments regulate all sorts of things that could be handled by the parents. However it works better setting a standard via regulation. The world is moving to regulate these companies due to the harm they are causing.
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago> The platform isn't actively harming. > It's actively driving them to content they engage with Regardless of whether or not that content is harmful or not
- mlsu 2mo agoWhy punish S.E. Massengill? It’s the parents, after all, who willingly allowed their children to drink sulfanilamide. Hell, if the children simply closed their mouths when the spoon is in front of them, they’d be perfectly fine!
- philipallstar 2mo agoThis is a silly comparison. Social media doesn't instantly kill your children, and we've known it's bad for them for ages now so parents have had time to adjust. Give kids devices, win stupid prizes.
- 59percentmore 2mo agoI just saw an ad for Instagram's teen features, aimed at parents. You can't advertise for your product and then say that people are using it of their own volition. We are right back to the 90s and Big Tobacco.