21–30 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you are right about that, age verification is greater evil than the teens doomscrolling. With age verification anonymity is impossible.
You aren't anon online and you never were. It's a public network. You have the illusion of anonymity. It's wild to see how fanatically we defend an illusion.
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.
What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar companies seriously reform (which would hurt their bottom lines), I don't know what you'd do other than banning the product, much like what we did for cigarettes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't anon online and you never were. It's a public network. You have the illusion of anonymity. It's wild to see how fanatically we defend an illusion.
You aren't "anon" to the whole world. But the less information you are required to handle, the better. Never trust "but think of the children"
[flagged]
Guess it’s that time in my lifecycle, but when I was a kid it was possible, nay probable, to accidentally stumble on some really horrific things on the internet, particularly on p2p sharing, and I’m fine (married, 3 children, no medications). I don’t see why kids need special protection from positive feedback loops. Parents need to be involved to turn this exposure from an affliction into an inoculation
Is the science 100% settled? No. Is this the best possible way to regulate this? No. But it's sure better than the current state of things.
"laws such as A.B. 1709, as passed by the legislature, function as a ban on social media use for people under the age of 16"
That's not my reading of the bill, specifically 22683. (a) (2) on https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
"This subdivision does not prohibit a covered platform from permitting a user who is under 16 years of age to create or maintain an account on the covered platform if that user is not provided with any addictive feature"
They just need to take out the endless autoplaying shorts and other features that are, honestly, annoying in the first place. The main thing I would change here is that even adults must be provided with a setting to opt out of addictive features.
Would it destroy TikTok's business model? Maybe; maybe that's even a good thing.
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.
Agreed entirely. They're really glossing over the harm parts. The vibe in this article feels like someone who used the internet in the 90s and 2000s when community was actually a thing. Maybe even early Facebook days when it was college level and newly released to the general public. What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar compa…
Yeah, it's weird - the first couple of paragraphs feel a lot like, "... but FOMO!" is their argument against it.
I'm afraid this reads like "we've not 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, so ..." Is the science 100% settled? No. Is this the best possible way to regulate this? No. But it's sure better than the current state of things. "laws such as A.B. 1709, as passed by the legislature, function as a ban on social media use for people under the age of 16" That's not my reading of the bill, specifically 22683. (a) (2) on htt…
I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.