571–580 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Straw man.
The most likely parents to exercise a right to read their 16-year-old teenager's online messages would be abusive, controlling ones.
Luckily everyone grows up and when you're 18 you can move to a Democrat state never entering a church ever again.
I think that people aren't giving enough credence to the reason Utah gives for the restrictions: The teen mental health crisis. Social media has radically changed the social lives of adolescents, and as a result anxiety, depression, self harm, and suicide have all skyrocketed. The data on this is not ambiguous [1]. And there's now a lot of evidence that social media and smartphones are the cause of the crisis: they s…
The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)
Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?
So no it's not just the gays who have to fear their parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utah isn’t an outliers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/... . Sparsely populated rural areas tend to have high suicide rates. Vermont and Oregon are at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of theism and culture, but have similarly high suicide rates. New Hampshire and Maine are also higher than Mississippi and Alabama. Reducing theism (mandatory social interaction and social support)…
Salt lake city is not a sparsely populated rural area, and its suicide rate is about the same as the state's overall rate (24 vs 20.8). Could be some altitude effects as a sibling comment observed, though SLC at only 4200 ft isn't in the Denver range. But Utah also had a large rise in teen suicide over times that align also with the social media hypothesis: https://utah-health.shorthandstories.com/state-of-suffering/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media is not the same as it was 10 years ago. The level of which kids compare themselves to other kids took an exponential leap to a near hive mind level. Constantly comparing themselves to the instagram people with fake lives, rich kids, or extremely beautiful people is mentally damaging them. My daughter asked me for plastic surgery, and I was dumbfounded. So I went check her internet logs, and she's been wa…
The mental health of teens and pre-teens has gotten really bad. This isn't just another "think of the children scare." Since the early 2010s the rate of self harm among girls 10-14 has ~tripled, and the rate of suicide among 10-14 year olds has doubled [1]. And there is now lots of evidence that this is because of social media and smartphones. The social lives of kids have changed drastically, in a way that does not…
The really toxic thing here is the portable omnipresent virtual Skinner box.
Highlighting that specific thing will help make sure any regulation we do enact will be properly targeted. Kids learning to code or doing homework on a computer or even playing a few games is not the problem. “Social” media and hyper-addictive content is the problem. Tech that is designed to be addictive is the problem.
Addictive trash on PCs can be harmful too, but the form factor limits just how extreme and pervasive it can be.
I also think the mobile ecosystem is just culturally more oriented toward making things addictive. Mobile games, media, everything on the platform seems designed to suck people in and keep them staring. The PC ecosystem still seems to have some sense that computers should exist to help people or make them smarter, not addict them. It’s like mobile is run by the people who design slot machines.
The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)
Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?
They aren’t.
But they are a group particularly targeted right now, and targeted by legislation, and targeted by the same religious-social-political faction pushing this legislation even if this particular piece of legislation doesn’t overtly target them, so…its reasonably to pay particular attention to how this legislation affects them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh...are you a parent of teenagers? Because that statement is not true and smacks of Ivory Tower thinking.
I mean it’s somewhat true, if it were legal for 12 year olds to have these things AND it was marketed toward them, way more kids would be have it than not. That’s not to say they can’t get it now, but it’s harder and somewhat self regulating because the stigma around doing something illegal.
Case in point being that here in the UK it is illegal to market tobacco products at all (including to adults in this case). This also applies to politicians, prescriptions medicine and a bunch of other things. And IMO it’s often a good compromise that allows for harm reduction without outright banning something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?
[flagged]
“Christians” is overly broad here, though, yes, its a large subset of Christians. (Its a particularly divisive issue among Christians, both between denominations and in some cases – e.g., the Catholic Church – within them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough WASPs are the ones pushing pornographic books in schools. Florida is one of the most diverse states in the country.
Neither of those things are true? The books being banned are not pornographic?
In Florida, meanwhile, non-Hispanic whites are just 51% of the population (versus 65-70% in Massachusetts and Connecticut). And the white people who are there aren’t really “WASPs” in the typical sense of the word. DeSantis, of course, isn’t a WASP at all. He’s a Catholic. American social conservatism is primarily a coalition of southern whites, “ethnic whites” (German, Italian, and Irish), and Hispanics—none of whom were traditionally considered “WASPs.”
The books are absolutely pornographic: https://www.ibtimes.sg/texas-school-sparks-outrage-after-mom.... They contain graphic depictions of underage people engaged in sex acts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guarantee that there are more than 5 million bot accounts alone.
Ooh I’m curious to hear more. Do you have inside knowledge, or see widespread evidence of bots? I’ve only seen perhaps a few here and there, almost always downvoted to oblivion.