Back in the day before regulations, peoples lights would go up and down in intensity with sound from over powered AM radio stations.
California parents could soon sue for social media addiction
221–225 of 225 posts
Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction
#222What I've come to realize in recent years is there are an awful lot of people who have children who don't want to be parents. It's like they don't even like children but it seems like they're running down a Life checklist of things you should do. Or maybe they like the idea of having adult children? I really don't know. But I know so many people who don't actually like spending time with their children. I get some pe…
I am a high school student and I haven't used social media (insta/fb/tiktok/snapchat). I keep in touch with my friends on whatsapp, voice calling(yes that exists) and offline.
When we were online we used to talk on zoom/Google Meet whatever. I didn't feel any loss not being with my friends on social media.
Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, every business optimizes yield. Smart businesses optimize UX for conversion. FREE with no revenue is loss. What's next? Suing vegas for the lights? You don't want to gamble? Don't go to Vegas. They already have "How much time have I spent in here?" features. You may not optimize yield because the children are compulsive addictive and it's the internet's fault. What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend…
>What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend time there? Well, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop
> How are they supposed to know that you don't want to be in the store anymore?
Is the store - who you are not paying - a 1) business of public accomodation; or 2) obligated to provide such detection and ejection services; or 3) required to provide service?
You can't cut them off, they're Donny (who TOS don't apply to). You must cut them off, they can't they're not even. You are responsible for my behavior!
Best of luck suing the game publisher for optimizing the game, the author of a book you got for FREE for your time lost, suing the bar that you chose to frequent; do you think they're required to provide service to you? Did they prevent you from leaving? Did they prevent you from choosing to do something else, like entering a different URL in your address bar at will?
You should instead pay someone to provide the hypothetical service you're demanding fascist control over. CA is not a shareholder; and this new policy will be challenged and the state must apply said policy to all other businesses equally: you may not dog just {business you're trying to illegally dom} with an obligation to put a countdown or countup timer above the fold because they keep taking so much of your time.
EDIT: I just can't f believe they thought that only {Facebook} would have to check real name IDs at the door, run a stopwatch for each user with a clock above the fold, profile your mental health status, allow Donny to keep harassing just whoever, and tell you when it's time to go because you can't help yourself when it's time to leave the store they continued to optimize.
Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> others harming their children I'd suggest they did harm to their own children when they allowed a smartphone and social media at an early age.
> early age Given that the human brain is still forming into your 20's, the harm can happen at any age. And given how much social media pressures impact teenagers, it doesn't even require that early of an age.
Are you suggesting that my comment is incorrect, that parents are okay to allow access to smartphones/tables/etc. for their children, because our brains can be harmed by social media at many other ages?
I believe that is what they call whataboutism, unless I misunderstood the point of your comment. When people comment at me I usually assume they're attempting to correct me.
Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am addict. Social media is not addictive. It's... Really fun, but addiction is far too strong of a word.
Addiction isn't just a word, it's actually something that's well defined, specifically compulsively engaging in behaviour despite the negative consequences. The thing is, be it behavioural or chemical, the root of addiction is the over expression of the ΔFosB gene in response to a reward pathway. Good for you that you can use social media without being addicted (like most people). It doesn't mean everyone can.
Going to reference some 90s stoner movie, I forget which one. Stoner is at an NA meeting "Weed!? You ever suck dick for weed?"
No one is going to rob their parents, break into a business at night, or suck dick to check their Facebook feed.
You might miss it, but that's not an addiction.