181–190 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or just close the tab
You're basically saying "put the drink down" to an alcoholic or "put the cigarette out" to a smoker. This issue really is more complicated than you make it to be.
I think the angle of these laws as well as the parenting response here in the thread are both wildly off because they both take a completely individualistic approach to something that's a systemic issue. The litigation culture of having individual people sue for damage doesn't go to the root cause and is a bureaucratic and legal nightmare. Delegating something that is effectively an environmental issue to the respons…
I agree with everything you’re saying up until this point: > What's necessary is clear rules that align the behavior of companies with social ends. If they can't square making money with keeping public discourse healthy or not making teens mentally ill they need to be culled, it's that simple. I don’t think it’s that simple, or simple in the way you may imagine. It’s impossible to come up with rules that even a plura…
I mean some of the controversy here may be of the 'difficult to make someone understand something their income depends on them not understanding' variety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, every business optimizes yield. Smart businesses optimize UX for conversion. FREE with no revenue is loss. What's next? Suing vegas for the lights? You don't want to gamble? Don't go to Vegas. They already have "How much time have I spent in here?" features. You may not optimize yield because the children are compulsive addictive and it's the internet's fault. What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend…
How about the movies? Are they allowed to optimize for engagement by screen testing, or no? It's not Art it's Ari: You want to sell an art film? Take it to an art film festival. How are they supposed to know that you don't want to be in the store anymore?
For context here, there are many existing methods for limiting ones access to certain DNS domains and applications at the client. A reasonable person can:
- Add an /etc/hosts file entry: `etchosts='/etc/hosts' echo '127.0.0.1 domain.com www.domain.com' >> "${etchosts}`
- Install a browser extension for limiting time spent by domain
- Buy a router that can limit access by DNS domain and time of day (with regard for the essential communications of others who could bypass default DNS blocking with a VPN that can be expected to also regularly fail)
- Install an app (with access to the OS process space of other programs in order to restrict them) to limit time spent by application and/or DNS domain
-- Enable "Focus Mode" in Android; with the "Digital Wellbeing" application
-- Enable "Screen Time" in iOS; and also report on and limit usage of apps [and also to limit access to DNS domains, you'd also need required integration with a required browser]
You can install just an IM (Instant Messenging) app, and only then learn strategies for focusing amidst information overload and alert fatigue.
Some users do manage brands and provide customer service and support non-blocked but blocking essential communications, while managing their health at a desk all day. Some places literally require you to check your mobile device at the door. What should the default timer above the fold on just facebook be set to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be legal for sale to children? What about advertising specifically targeted at getting kids interested and hooked on cigarettes? What about child labor? Why not let just parents decide what's right for their kids? There's some behaviors of corporations interacting with children that are correctly regulated in the interest of the broader society we live in. It is completely v…
> 1. Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be legal for sale to children? Yes. But age limits on them should still exist but be lowered (to say 13). Parents need to teach their kids how to responsibly enjoy vices. In general I think all vice laws should be purged from the books. > 2. What about advertising specifically targeted at getting kids interested and hooked on cigarettes? I'm okay with some limits on add…
What I've come to realize in recent years is there are an awful lot of people who have children who don't want to be parents. It's like they don't even like children but it seems like they're running down a Life checklist of things you should do. Or maybe they like the idea of having adult children? I really don't know. But I know so many people who don't actually like spending time with their children. I get some pe…
> It does seem easy to scapegoat companies for these issues though When the addictive factor is deliberately manufactured into a product (AKA engagement), the company absolutely bears some (IMO, a large amount of) responsibility.
So, every product from every company ever. That's the goal of marketing, after all. Why not extend this law for everyone? Why can't I sue Lego because my son keeps insisting I buy them, or why can't I sue Budweiser because I keep finding myself buying their booze?
It's an unfairly targeted law to win easy political points, because everyone hates big social right now, but everyone loves Lego.
What about youtube?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention, beyond the technical considerations, there's also social implications. To what extent can you remove kids from social media before they start feeling excessively socially constricted compared to their peers? For example, taking away phones altogether is likely to lead to a much harder social life. If the tech companies encourage more responsible use of social media, they can make it easier for both th…
Do kids really need to have an online social life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be legal for sale to children? What about advertising specifically targeted at getting kids interested and hooked on cigarettes? What about child labor? Why not let just parents decide what's right for their kids? There's some behaviors of corporations interacting with children that are correctly regulated in the interest of the broader society we live in. It is completely v…
Okay but then you'd actually have to prove that advertising and social media rises to the same level of consistent harm with reliably addictive mechanisms as cigarettes and alcohol. You'd have to do, like, medical science and stuff, not just vague surveys that some teens get slightly lower self esteem peppered with a few irrelevant "I quit Facebook and I feel better now" anecdotes. A lot of people were so sure and so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only parents could exert some sort of influence or authority over others harming their children. We could call it "sueing".
What a lazy, pathetic attitude. Why don't you sue candy makers while you're at it? If you don't want to perform a parent's job, DON'T HAVE KIDS. I detest social-media companies in general, but clogging up our courts with this namby-pamby bullshit is offensive to every citizen. And ugh, just as people were mocking Reddit's declining culture, a couple of them turn around and down-mod this oh-so-hurtful sentiment. Pull…
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
I don't have children but am closely befriended with a few couples that I see almost every week that do have children. All are of a similar age, and I've seen them grow up from birth to their current age of about 12-14. I wanted to share some observations as a "neutral" observer... Their first device is the iPad, starting at about 3-4 y/o and I've seen a case as young as 1 y/o. Before the iPad, the children act natur…
You are effectively absolving the parents of responsibility even at ages as low as 3-4(!). I'll say this: I think it's very fashionable to put no guilt on anyone ever even when it's objectively clear who's guilty. Same goes for sugar intake. Children don't have jobs, they have no money of their own. They are not going to get addicted to sugar products unless you give them the money to buy these products or you buy th…