5 ms·

things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual

by achenet 23d ago

things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks). Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.

stubish 23d ago
In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.
vintagedave 23d ago
My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.
- achenet 23d ago
  Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
  - vintagedave 23d ago
    Good points :) I think you and I likely largely agree, I just expressed myself poorly. > I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. > But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... > And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement. This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.)
    - achenet 17d ago
      sorry for taking forever to reply ^^" > I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. Generally agree with this, and when things look bad politically, I take comfort in looking back on life 300 years ago and celebrate that things have gotten better since then (the average French citizen now can read, write, and has access to universal health care, the average French citizen 300 years ago was a barely literate peasant). > Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... Hmm... I think focusing on the features may miss what is generally the root cause of addiction - the environment. Not sure if you're familiar with Rat Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park but I believe generally addiction issues are best solved via solving the environmental problem that leads people to becoming drug addicts, namely a lack of other ways to have fun, not by banning the 'addictive' activity, be it drugs, alcohol or gambling. To use a personal example, when I was an edgy 16 year old back in the mid-late 2000s, I went on 4chan a lot. Arguably, I was addicted, given that my 4chan time got in the way of homework and sleep. Now ~2007 era 4chan did not have an algorithm that optimized for engagement and ad revenue. It did not have infinite scroll. The only thing it had was a high volume of users submitting content, but that was enough to keep me staring at 4chan instead of doing more important things. A ban of "addictive algorithms and infinite scroll", which is similar to what you're proposing would not have blocked 4chan, or helped me live a healthier and more economically productive life. However, I'm totally okay with taxing "addictive features". If the Aussie gov't wants to tell Meta "hey, we notice you do things like 'push teenage girls to suicide to sell more ads', so we're taking a cut of everything you make in Australia, which we will then use to enact various initiatives which help the mental (and physical) health of teenage girls", I think that's great. Also relevant - I got on Facebook around the same time/age (~16, mid/late 2000s) I got on 4chan, and the latter has really been nothing but a positive presence in my life. Despite having moved between countries and continents, I have an easy way to find and reach people I've not seen in years, if not decades. > This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.) YouTube has become television 2.0. Basically everything bad that can be said about YouTube is "bad parts of cable television, amplified". However, it's a great way to learn basically anything. Facebook/Instagram are really good tools to help small businesses find customers. I have a friend launching her personal coaching business right now, and Instagram is how she finds and stays in contact with customers. As mentioned above, Facebook can also act like a 'global phone book', enabling people who have lost touch due to circumstances (moving away) to get and stay in touch. More generally, basically all the major social media platforms are popular because they give people who don't have a bunch of technical knowledge, who might not understand how to write up an HTML website, host it, and register a domain name, a platform to express themselves online. A Facebook or Instagram profile is the internet's version of the Model T. It makes having an online presence accessible to the unwashed masses, and, being something of a techno-optimist, I believe creating a world where anyone can communicate with anyone will lead to what you called "our improvement as a species", and make "war and conflict" less common, because we'll be too busy arguing online to actually be killing each other :)
dinfinity 23d ago
Does it harm other taxpayers if people are manipulated to believe that voting for Neofascists will make things better? Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. The problem with social media is that it is very new, very broad, and in part quite innocent (just communication with friendly people). Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon.
- achenet 17d ago
  > Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. If you'll forgive me doing the cliche HN "well actually"... Well actually, FARC, revolutionary armed forces of Columbia, used cocaine traffic to fund their political activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_... > I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. Agree with this, but I believe the "healthy relationship with addictive things" often comes from "a health life + environment", which can be facilitated with tax money from taxing addictive things. > Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon. One idea which I'd like to see attempted would be "government social media". Rather than argue politics on Twitter and TikTok, have the government of $COUNTRY put that country's text of laws online, put the budget of the government online, and let people propose changes. Create an upvote/downvote mechanism like on HN and Reddit to filter through to proposed changes, have the government enact the most popular ones. Why bitch about your president on Twitter when you can literally create a proposal to impeach them on your country's official social media site? Make account creation dependent on showing a valid national ID, so each citizen has one profile, and therefore one 'vote' on each proposal (upvote or downvote), and see if that isn't a better system than "laws will be made by a guy you get to choose every couple years, basically without any input from you, while rich people will buy ads of social media sites to confuse you into voting for their preferred candidate".

by achenet 23d ago

stubish 23d ago

In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.

vintagedave 23d ago

My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.

achenet 23d ago
Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
- vintagedave 23d ago
  Good points :) I think you and I likely largely agree, I just expressed myself poorly. > I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. > But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... > And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement. This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.)
  - achenet 17d ago
    sorry for taking forever to reply ^^" > I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. Generally agree with this, and when things look bad politically, I take comfort in looking back on life 300 years ago and celebrate that things have gotten better since then (the average French citizen now can read, write, and has access to universal health care, the average French citizen 300 years ago was a barely literate peasant). > Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... Hmm... I think focusing on the features may miss what is generally the root cause of addiction - the environment. Not sure if you're familiar with Rat Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park but I believe generally addiction issues are best solved via solving the environmental problem that leads people to becoming drug addicts, namely a lack of other ways to have fun, not by banning the 'addictive' activity, be it drugs, alcohol or gambling. To use a personal example, when I was an edgy 16 year old back in the mid-late 2000s, I went on 4chan a lot. Arguably, I was addicted, given that my 4chan time got in the way of homework and sleep. Now ~2007 era 4chan did not have an algorithm that optimized for engagement and ad revenue. It did not have infinite scroll. The only thing it had was a high volume of users submitting content, but that was enough to keep me staring at 4chan instead of doing more important things. A ban of "addictive algorithms and infinite scroll", which is similar to what you're proposing would not have blocked 4chan, or helped me live a healthier and more economically productive life. However, I'm totally okay with taxing "addictive features". If the Aussie gov't wants to tell Meta "hey, we notice you do things like 'push teenage girls to suicide to sell more ads', so we're taking a cut of everything you make in Australia, which we will then use to enact various initiatives which help the mental (and physical) health of teenage girls", I think that's great. Also relevant - I got on Facebook around the same time/age (~16, mid/late 2000s) I got on 4chan, and the latter has really been nothing but a positive presence in my life. Despite having moved between countries and continents, I have an easy way to find and reach people I've not seen in years, if not decades. > This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.) YouTube has become television 2.0. Basically everything bad that can be said about YouTube is "bad parts of cable television, amplified". However, it's a great way to learn basically anything. Facebook/Instagram are really good tools to help small businesses find customers. I have a friend launching her personal coaching business right now, and Instagram is how she finds and stays in contact with customers. As mentioned above, Facebook can also act like a 'global phone book', enabling people who have lost touch due to circumstances (moving away) to get and stay in touch. More generally, basically all the major social media platforms are popular because they give people who don't have a bunch of technical knowledge, who might not understand how to write up an HTML website, host it, and register a domain name, a platform to express themselves online. A Facebook or Instagram profile is the internet's version of the Model T. It makes having an online presence accessible to the unwashed masses, and, being something of a techno-optimist, I believe creating a world where anyone can communicate with anyone will lead to what you called "our improvement as a species", and make "war and conflict" less common, because we'll be too busy arguing online to actually be killing each other :)

dinfinity 23d ago

Does it harm other taxpayers if people are manipulated to believe that voting for Neofascists will make things better? Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. The problem with social media is that it is very new, very broad, and in part quite innocent (just communication with friendly people). Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon.

achenet 17d ago
> Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. If you'll forgive me doing the cliche HN "well actually"... Well actually, FARC, revolutionary armed forces of Columbia, used cocaine traffic to fund their political activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_... > I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. Agree with this, but I believe the "healthy relationship with addictive things" often comes from "a health life + environment", which can be facilitated with tax money from taxing addictive things. > Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon. One idea which I'd like to see attempted would be "government social media". Rather than argue politics on Twitter and TikTok, have the government of $COUNTRY put that country's text of laws online, put the budget of the government online, and let people propose changes. Create an upvote/downvote mechanism like on HN and Reddit to filter through to proposed changes, have the government enact the most popular ones. Why bitch about your president on Twitter when you can literally create a proposal to impeach them on your country's official social media site? Make account creation dependent on showing a valid national ID, so each citizen has one profile, and therefore one 'vote' on each proposal (upvote or downvote), and see if that isn't a better system than "laws will be made by a guy you get to choose every couple years, basically without any input from you, while rich people will buy ads of social media sites to confuse you into voting for their preferred candidate".