31–40 of 593 posts
I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.
Is it really so controversial to ban it entirely? We ban heroin and other hard drugs. I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.
Is it really so controversial to ban it entirely? We ban heroin and other hard drugs. I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Social media" doesn't just mean Facebook right? It includes sites like Hacker News, yeah?
I'd draw a line using some of these aspects: - Algorithmic recommendation / "engagement" engineering - Profit/business model - Images/Videos - Real-life identity
Is it really so controversial to ban it entirely? We ban heroin and other hard drugs. I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.
I mean, sure, prime examples of what is colloquially called “social media” is crapware. I do get the intent.
But I wonder what sort of unintended, unplanned, odd and potentially even socially harmful consequences it would possibly have.
I secretly wish it would use a verification scheme that's so invasive/annoying, that even adults would stop using it anyway.
IMHO the main point of these schemes is to make it hard for adults to use social media somewhat-anonyously. So the government can more easily identify those posting 'prohibited speech'. If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet, there'd have been more of a crackdown on porn, gore, etc long before social media became such a big problem. And smartphones would have never been allowed…
> If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet
As with any disease, the impact heavily depends on virality.
The worst the internet has to offer to children, is not the gore or porn for the few that look for it (usually individually). The worst it does to children is the attention algorithm that captures practically everybody.
Is it really so controversial to ban it entirely? We ban heroin and other hard drugs. I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.
I'm fine with this, as long as they DO NOT require any form of ID or 'age' verification. Instead this should be attacked from the profit side, by banning any form of advertising which might target children. If there's no profit to be made in servicing said demographic and a law requesting at least end user 'agreement' that they are an adult, this should be sufficient.
Who decides whether an ad is targeting children or not? I’m not playing devil’s advocate, I’m curious what the SOTA is for ad moderation. I’m sure it’s relatively easy to tell a kid’s toy ad from adult ones like alcohol, but how do you differentiate toy ads targeting parents vs toy ads targeting kids?
I secretly wish it would use a verification scheme that's so invasive/annoying, that even adults would stop using it anyway.
IMHO the main point of these schemes is to make it hard for adults to use social media somewhat-anonyously. So the government can more easily identify those posting 'prohibited speech'. If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet, there'd have been more of a crackdown on porn, gore, etc long before social media became such a big problem. And smartphones would have never been allowed…