491–500 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
27 years ago we didn’t have children spending 90% of their waking hours staring at network connected devices. Only the nerds did that and it was in a computer lab. And they knew enough about keeping up appearances to hit Alt-Tab when an adult was getting close.
Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.
The problem is that once such a thing fails, it gives massive ammunition to future naysayers that get to conveniently ignore all the implementation failures because campaigning for/against will ultimately boil down to bullet points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you are getting at, but to inject some nuance: TV, print, radio, music and to a lesser extent games are all subject to some level of industry or statutory content regulation. For example, in America, you're very unlikely to have a kids TV channel suddenly switch to videos of people being killed in industrial accidents. new media, not so much. Watershed, age constraints and company ending fines exist…
25 years ago us kids were watching viral content on the internet that wasn’t even acceptable to go on youtube then or now. Still today, we are now your young doctors and lawyers and young business executives, despite all the quite disturbing viral content that characterized the early 2000s internet. I think we did fine and I think the kids will be alright too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you are getting at, but to inject some nuance: TV, print, radio, music and to a lesser extent games are all subject to some level of industry or statutory content regulation. For example, in America, you're very unlikely to have a kids TV channel suddenly switch to videos of people being killed in industrial accidents. new media, not so much. Watershed, age constraints and company ending fines exist…
You're criticizing the lack of moderation. So let's make a law about that ! Adults can be traumatized, too. Making this about children has us putting up barriers in the wrong places.
Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.
> Let the experiment take place, I say It is an unconstitutional law; it is following the path of similar unconstitutional laws¹²³. Where is the experiment? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... (sections about minor access to indecent material struck down) ³ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/oh...
- social media being optimized for addiction
- social media potentially compromising minors’ physical safety
- social media use having documented adverse mental health outcomes for minors
- the fact that social media use requires an ongoing contractual relationship between the company and the minor
I could see these factors tipping the balance on the “compelling government interest” question, though I see less of an argument for “narrow tailoring”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your weird neighbour who has a feet fetish would never get to be a TV star Look up Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider my man.
Haha, I was sure someone would make a comment like this. The point is that that his fetish would not be the show’s content :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They sound like incompetent business proprietors. When did having a website become something exclusively for old people? Millennials are in their 30s and 40s.
Their competence is measured by their success, not your opinions. And it turns out that in many professions, an insta is the thing you need for success. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not theirs. You're part of a small enough group they don't care about. I'm not sure how that's an age question in the first place, though. The "being run by millenials" throwaway by GP is just... well, at best, sloppy thinki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.
That's just me grabbing a snippet from Wikipedia, but it seems like a different issue than the impact of social media and whether it should be allowed by minors w/o parental consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I respond by letting her know she will be able to buy a house if she wants one I assume she's good at math? I'm sure she's solved way harder math problems than calculating how long it will take to save up a $200k down payment when you make $4k a month and pay 80% of that in rent and taxes. > the economy will always be good for people who are work smart and hard, Ummm....well, if that's been your experience, God ble…
You are really ignoring that I put smart before hard. Sorry things haven't gone your way though, I am kinda surprised someone could have been in tech for > 10 years and not have significant savings, stock, real estate or something built up.
chuckle. Well, I'm sure that will cheer up the kiddies: "I guess you just don't deserve a house, because you aren't smart enough."
> I am kinda surprised someone could have been in tech for > 10 years and not have significant savings,
That'll cheer up the kiddies too :-) "Wow, what's wrong with you; I can't believe you don't have anything to show for your 4 years in college and 20 years working for the man....how is that even possible? I guess you just didn't have what it takes..."
After such words of encouragement, I'm feeling better already :-) chuckle I don't want to pillory you, but I hope you might consider the possibility that canceling Tik-Tok isn't going to be some magic bullet to cheer up the youth.
I've had my fair share of success and failure--its just that the successes were sooooo much easier than the failures. If the team is right, the product-market fit is right, and its an idea whose time has come, the whole universe seems to be pulling for you. Yes, you are humping, but it's because you are like a kid on an easter egg hunt, and want to pick up as many easter eggs as you can!
But what if there're no easter eggs in the field? I.e. if the economy is down, they laid off all the people who actually know how the code works, the ones who are left introduce 5 bugs for every 1 bug they fix..
...it's like trying to paddle a boat upstream vs downstream. Yes, some factors are in your control, and you should make sure those are taken care of.
But by far the lion's share of success comes from things entirely out of your control:
* What country were you born in?
* Did you have teachers who cared?
* Could your parents pay for college, or did you start off $100k in debt?
* Did you avoid coming down with multiple sclerosis, or having a drunk driver plow into you, etc so you never had any long-term health problems?
* Did the president of the united state just spend $3 trillion of your dollars on an oil war which gave us absolutely nothing in return?
* Did those jerks on wall street detonate the economy again?
* Did the president cut taxes for everybody else but you, and finance it literally by printing money, bloating the money supply, and inevitably resulting in increasing the debt by $8.5 trillion and sparking the worst inflation we've seen since the OPEC crisis?
* And is he just going to get away with trying to steal your vote, so what little say you still have have will also be taken away?
The kids have a legitimate beef. You are not going to "work smarter, and harder" your way out of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
But of course the elephant in the room is that the makeup of the Court has changed in a markedly more conservative direction and has proven itself not averse to revisiting previously settled law.