3 ms·

I think what's missing here is elderly. Arguably, that's even more harmful.

by blagie 1mo ago

azan_ 1mo ago
How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.
- TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
  The elderly can vote, and are easier to scam. Harming kids creates harmed kids. Harming elders helps install terrible governments which harm everyone - including kids.
- Spooky23 1mo ago
  Look around. The raging dumpster fire consuming everything was started by armies of stupid old people manipulated on platforms like Facebook. The kids will be ok. The revolution won’t be started by boomer dads.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
    There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
    - Spooky23 1mo ago
      Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes. It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
- Transfinity 1mo ago
  The DOJ pays a lot of attention to elder abuse: https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/about-elder-abuse https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/about-elder-abuse I don't know that I would agree it's _worse_ than what FB does to children. But there's clearly a parallel, in that a vulnerable segment of society is prey to a careless corporation and the heinous ecosystem of scamers and abusers they foster.
ajcp 1mo ago
How are the elderly, who have full rights as citizens/members of society, and are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions, more harmed than minors, who are none of that?
- blagie 1mo ago
  > are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions I don't think you've ever had a relative with e.g. Alzheimer's or dementia. There's a fine line where the above stops being the case. "Vulnerable to predatory behaviour" happens a long time before "can't find the bathroom without a nurse."
  - ajcp 1mo ago
    I do...
    - blagie 1mo ago
      ... then (at least if they are far enough gone), you have elderly relatives who are not "free and accountable for their own actions."
SoftTalker 1mo ago
The elderly are grown adults who have a lifetime of experience and can be expected to see through the charade and spot what's really going on. Young people are more naive. I'm almost legally a senior citizen and I saw Facebook for what it was a long time ago, and most of the people I know who are my age don't use it, they don't even like social media in general. They use email or text messages, mostly. The people who have asked me why I don't have Insta are all in their 20s. Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.
- freshnode 1mo ago
  I disagree. They did not grow up with technology in the same way we did. This is all still quite new to them, and I truly believe the ragebait strategy and polarisation is just as damaging as the tricks used to ensnare teenagers.
- blagie 1mo ago
  > Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age. If there were a clean way to define it, I'd probably be better to change: - "elderly" to "individuals impacted by mental decline, dementia, or other disability;" and - "children" to "people who haven't reached an adequate level of maturity to [long definition]." The point is MOST elderly are impacted by mental decline or dementia by some age. That's often not the same as age-of-retirement. I know people where it happened at 60, and where it happened in their nineties. Serious questions: You'll be a senior citizen soon enough, and maybe a decade later this will hit you too. What mechanisms would you like in place to be protected? If and when it this hits you, there may be a long period where you'll be: a) Functional (e.g. able to feed yourself, keep yourself clean, manage the house) and not needing care (e.g. nursing home); b) Emotionally important to your relatives; and yet c) Already vulnerable to predatory behaviour What protective measures would you like to see in place during this period? Footnote: In my current location, most people 80 and beyond are glued to some source of polarizing disinformation, be that Facebook or cable TV. Coincidentally, of the few I know better personally, some have empty bank accounts, since they can't manage their money properly any more. But they can cook, clean, shop, but not more complex things like that. It's not just outright scammers. It's predatory advertising, and all sorts of other predatory behaviour.

I think what's missing here is elderly. Arguably, that's even more harmful.

by blagie 1mo ago

I think what's missing here is elderly. Arguably, that's even more harmful.

azan_ 1mo ago

How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.

TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
The elderly can vote, and are easier to scam. Harming kids creates harmed kids. Harming elders helps install terrible governments which harm everyone - including kids.
Spooky23 1mo ago
Look around. The raging dumpster fire consuming everything was started by armies of stupid old people manipulated on platforms like Facebook. The kids will be ok. The revolution won’t be started by boomer dads.
- SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
  There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
  - Spooky23 1mo ago
    Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes. It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
Transfinity 1mo ago
The DOJ pays a lot of attention to elder abuse: https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/about-elder-abuse https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/about-elder-abuse I don't know that I would agree it's _worse_ than what FB does to children. But there's clearly a parallel, in that a vulnerable segment of society is prey to a careless corporation and the heinous ecosystem of scamers and abusers they foster.

ajcp 1mo ago

How are the elderly, who have full rights as citizens/members of society, and are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions, more harmed than minors, who are none of that?

blagie 1mo ago
> are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions I don't think you've ever had a relative with e.g. Alzheimer's or dementia. There's a fine line where the above stops being the case. "Vulnerable to predatory behaviour" happens a long time before "can't find the bathroom without a nurse."
- ajcp 1mo ago
  I do...
  - blagie 1mo ago
    ... then (at least if they are far enough gone), you have elderly relatives who are not "free and accountable for their own actions."

SoftTalker 1mo ago

The elderly are grown adults who have a lifetime of experience and can be expected to see through the charade and spot what's really going on. Young people are more naive. I'm almost legally a senior citizen and I saw Facebook for what it was a long time ago, and most of the people I know who are my age don't use it, they don't even like social media in general. They use email or text messages, mostly. The people who have asked me why I don't have Insta are all in their 20s. Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.

freshnode 1mo ago
I disagree. They did not grow up with technology in the same way we did. This is all still quite new to them, and I truly believe the ragebait strategy and polarisation is just as damaging as the tricks used to ensnare teenagers.
blagie 1mo ago
> Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age. If there were a clean way to define it, I'd probably be better to change: - "elderly" to "individuals impacted by mental decline, dementia, or other disability;" and - "children" to "people who haven't reached an adequate level of maturity to [long definition]." The point is MOST elderly are impacted by mental decline or dementia by some age. That's often not the same as age-of-retirement. I know people where it happened at 60, and where it happened in their nineties. Serious questions: You'll be a senior citizen soon enough, and maybe a decade later this will hit you too. What mechanisms would you like in place to be protected? If and when it this hits you, there may be a long period where you'll be: a) Functional (e.g. able to feed yourself, keep yourself clean, manage the house) and not needing care (e.g. nursing home); b) Emotionally important to your relatives; and yet c) Already vulnerable to predatory behaviour What protective measures would you like to see in place during this period? Footnote: In my current location, most people 80 and beyond are glued to some source of polarizing disinformation, be that Facebook or cable TV. Coincidentally, of the few I know better personally, some have empty bank accounts, since they can't manage their money properly any more. But they can cook, clean, shop, but not more complex things like that. It's not just outright scammers. It's predatory advertising, and all sorts of other predatory behaviour.