451–460 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are also downsides to reducing anonymity - many more than benefits.
Like what?
- Chilling effect on political discussions. Good luck campaigning to overturn these laws if you can't do so without fear of reprisal from government officials or your local community.
- Limiting the ability for marginalized groups to seek support; LGBTQ youth, ex-mormons, etc., would be directly harmed by this.
Social Media use is probably worse than smoking for kids. Smoking gives you a 15% chance to get cancer in 50 years but instagram gives you a 66% chance of depression today. It’s incredibly, empirically unhealthy and it should be banned for children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. I'd still not like to live in that world.
Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.
Is this not exactly them telling people how to live their lives? "Live offline."
Social Media use is probably worse than smoking for kids. Smoking gives you a 15% chance to get cancer in 50 years but instagram gives you a 66% chance of depression today. It’s incredibly, empirically unhealthy and it should be banned for children.
Why let 18 year olds+ use it then? If it's that bad, it sounds more like crack, which we ban for everybody.
Whether this is a reasonable law or not, my big problem with it is that it puts the burden of enforcement on tech platforms rather than the kids' parents. There is no way for any company to check for something like this without also affecting every other user of the site, whether they are in Utah or not and whether they are a teen or not. What do they do exactly, start collecting government IDs from us before every v…
Should we remove content filters on YouTube and ask parents to filter content instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay guy here. I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, ba…
> An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. How?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay guy here. I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, ba…
> An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. How?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.
You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?
So this is like... let's introduce these concepts at a certain age level ("think of the kids") to normalize control over a population, eventually expanding it to undesirables? This is dangerous. Just like the groomers thing. The best thing about the internet has been unadulterated, unrestricted access to information. Parents should be more involved with what their kids are seeing, but kids seeing anything (from neope…
"Restricting the firehose of content driving mass upticks in childhood suicide rates, obesity, porn usage, and mental health issues - this is dangerous!".
Have you ever tried to squeeze a firehose shut without turning off the water first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why let 18 year olds+ use it then? If it's that bad, it sounds more like crack, which we ban for everybody.
I’m in favor of autonomy for adults but yeah, that might be a better world.