Live data from Hacker News

Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

dogdogfish.com

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#31

It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.

In most of Europe it's legal for Children to drink alcohol.

True, but misleading. There are practical blocks to children drinking alcohol: they can't buy it from shops or bars. In the UK, you can buy it from 18, and you can consume it in a pub/restaurant from 16 but only with a meal and supervised by an adult. In France, you can buy it in bars from 16.

An analogy would be that social media consumed by children is surely less harmful when it's a parent holding their own phone towards a child to show them a few selected photos from their Instagram feed. I doubt most people would object to that, even those that want to ban social media from children.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#32
post #8

>It’s like studying the social impact of vaping without considering the replacement activity (smoking). That's not how this works. If you ban vaping, not everyone - and not necessarily most people who vape - would be smoking instead. "X isn't as bad as Y" is not a good argument in favor of X. They can both be bad.

It's the same kind of bad line of argumentation we disputed for decades with banning piracy (implicit assumption that every pirated copy was a sale lost).

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#33
Eh, I feel like if we know there is a vulnerable population (children), and we know that the social media will cause harm (increased suicides, depression, etc), and we know that that ultimately it puts people in a place where they can't reasonably choose a better path (collective action, power imbalance, poor reasoning, no long-term perspective, social peer pressure, etc.), and where the parents are unable to reasonably control the behavior too, then a ban is warranted.

By that token, I honestly think we should ban more things that we know don't have an upside, and only have downsides, and the people who partake are generally doing so because of mental / physical shortcomings. In other words, if we know a reasonable person would not want to partake in a behavior unless due to manipulation and weakness, then I feel protecting that person is a kindness.

I myself have suffered from addictions that I can't seem to easily "choose to stop" even though I constantly wish I could. I really wish I wouldn't have been exposed to these things when I was younger and thought it was just fun. If I could, I would pay to go back and prevent my younger self from ever trying it -- because I had no way to know. And then I am a bit astonished none of the adults had that kind of concern. Sure a few people said "that stuff isn't good", but ultimately that lost to all the other factors (constant propaganda, ads, peer pressure, convenience, taste, addictive qualities, cost). It was never a "free choice" because there was huge information and power imbalance at play, and the "responsible adults" who could help did nothing.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#34
post #19

> We ban gambling for children, even though the vast majority of harm caused by gambling comes from adults. Now you could argue that more harm would befall children if we let them gamble, but I honestly don’t think you should. > By and large, children don’t have money. And even if they do, they don’t have other people who are dependent on it. If children were free to gamble (they sort of already are, what with in-gam…

I don't watch TV for years at a time, when I saw how many gambling ads are on now I was disgusted.

I think we should consider stricter restrictions on harmful advertising way before we rush to lock down the internet in order to "save the children". I don't understand why we have accepted that it's companies' God-given-right to blast propaganda which only functions to drain the working class of their money (gambling) and their health (endless ads for poor dietary choices). Why not limit advertisements to at least just products that makes people's lives easier? I especially would love to see more advertisement for rehab centers for example.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#35
post #12

It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.

We shouldn't ban children from drinking. It doesn't even help, because kids drink anyway, just illegally and largely unsupervised by adults. I certainly drank like a fish when I was underage.

Let me make a parallel argument: We shouldn’t ban drinking and driving. It doesn’t even help, because people do it anyway.

You seem to be setting the bar at “if anyone violates the law then the law is a failure and should be revoked.” But that’s why we have court systems. They don’t just determine if someone broke the law, but also what to do when people inevitably do. You’re operating in a world where the only restrictive laws we should have are ones where it eradicates certain behaviors 100%.

You’re basically arguing against having laws rather than the merits of the law and its efficacy. Also “drinking like a a fish” when you were a kid was terrible for your development even if you turned out ok. Many people do not. It’s not even debatable, we know the numbers on this.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of Europe it's legal for Children to drink alcohol.

You should try to go to "most of Europe" and try to get alcohol as someone <16 and see how that goes.

The comment I replied to specifically said "ban children from drinking", not purchase alcohol.

For instance here in the UK it's legal for any child over 5 to drink in private.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#37

I feel like if the conclusion is "ban it for everyone too" I'm okay with it? But the argument seems to get a little lost along the way. Yes, adults are susceptible to the same vices as children. However (as the author writes) children have poorer impulse control. They are also less inclined to or unable to consider the repercussions of their actions. You wouldn't try to get a toddler to stop smoking by telling them i…

>Speaking of smoking, anti-smoking campaigns in the US in the 90s led to a vast reduction in teen use and adult use alike.

Late 90s... specifically after 1997 and early 2000s. But the anti-smoking campaigns before that were not effective. In fact, educating teens and adults on the dangers of smoking increased smoking. Smoking rates for teens peaked at 37% in 1997. it wasn't until the "Truth" campaigns where they focused on how the tobacco industry was basically a conspiracy, that smoking rates began to fall. And you can't pretend that tobacco taxes didn't play a part in reducing usage either.

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#38
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't ban children from drinking. It doesn't even help, because kids drink anyway, just illegally and largely unsupervised by adults. I certainly drank like a fish when I was underage.

It does help actually. Since it’s banned it’s not socially acceptable . And that makes it sort of regulated

> not socially acceptable

I think you misspelled "cool".

Re: Banning Things for Other People Is Easy

#39
post #12

It would be a fun exercise to replace social media with alcohol in this article so that it argues we shouldn't ban children from drinking because drinking is bad for adults too.

We shouldn't ban children from drinking. It doesn't even help, because kids drink anyway, just illegally and largely unsupervised by adults. I certainly drank like a fish when I was underage.

and look at the results
Post reply on HN