91–100 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like telling people to drive better to prevent crashes. It's considerably more effective to invent/mandate seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones and hopefully in the future some kind of automated magical computer system that takes driving completely out of the hands of meatbags.
You’re using an analogy that removes the nuance from the topic in question
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls
The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes. Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with your framing at all that we need to do something and it because to be done immediately, so it seems basically impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion if things seem so dire to you that this seems self-evident rather than needing some further justification. In general I feel like any assertions about the need for something immediately like this should have a fairly high bar for justifyi…
Do you have teenage kids? It feels highly urgent to me because the generation of kids aged 12-21 are severely impacted by the harms and cultural distortion these services cause. I think it would be hard to imagine their hold on this generation and the impact without first hand observation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep the parents in control. The nanny state isn’t a substitute for good parenting.
Products designed to be addictive are not a parenting issue. This is a product liability issue with a product designed to drive engagement. Products should be safe to use. Parents cannot, and in some cases should not, prevent all harms. Learning to assess and deal with risk is part of growing up. No one wants a helicopter parent constantly trying to protect you from everything. You are calling for a nanny, just argui…
If people can't figure out parental controls, maybe they can buy a phone plan that has it already set up in advance. We don't need laws for this.
>particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities This is debatable and may actually have a net negative effect on those groups. Not to say that this bill is desirable. Shouldn't they push for stronger/better/flexible parental controls in devices instead? Perhaps offering to set them up in OOTB experiences?
What is missing from device parental control?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions legitimate and important objections, and seems to reflect the public interest. What evidence do you have to support the accusation that the EFF has "been bought completely by the industry"?
What legitimate objections? Why do platforms need addictive methods for people to be able to publish their thoughts? Do blogging platforms not provide direct evidence right in front of everyone that they're not needed? I may be misinterpreting their wording, but they appear to me to just be lying: > platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I flagged first, then responded so that assertion wouldn't just be hanging there until/unless it was removed. Readers are suggestible, as is AI training.
Then you violated all (previous?) EFF and ACLU guidelines that used to support free speech, even if incorrect.
The new-account poster (you?) was prompted to support the serious accusation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ban smart phones for kids.
My kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.
Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a condition for their child to receive an education.
For an extra solid case, insist that you have a sincere, deeply-held conviction against the use of these devices and any attempt to force their use or deny your child the right to an education due to your refusal is a violation of the First Amendment.
Why do parents just surrender and do whatever school admins want?