The kids with phones are alright

Post by Nursie » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:07 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #194

gherkinnn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media, as we have it today, is not healthy for anybody. It is bad, truly bad, and the companies responsible know it. You can't lace beer with crack and sell it. Not to a 12yo, not to a 50yo. Regulate the proverbial crack, then we see if further regulations are required. Earlier this year (0): > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack…

Just saying "regulate" it is not an answer and won't give you the results you think. What you'll get is restrictions on speech. UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets. There have been people that comment publicly on horrendous crimes that get harsher sentences than those that commit the crimes. At any point in time politicians could have enforced existing terms of service violatio…

Post by inigyou » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #253

inigyou wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it tends to resolve itself then why has it got worse not better? reality seems to contradict your position.

How has it gotten worse? You have a lot more freedom on all social media platforms than you did 4 years ago. What's gotten worse in some countries is the government censorship which I'm against.

Post by ceayo » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

ColdStream wrote: post #131

StingyJelly wrote: post #47

Kids with phones are alright. Attention economy of social media is not. As did tabaco companies, they (soc. media tech giants) push proposals to regulate phone use based on age in hopes that the their information asymmetry advantage and addictive dark patterns that are the problem in the first place won't be regulated and they can keep exploiting the public held in their trap by network effect.

All popular systems with negative impacts will always have a claim to virtue. An extreme example, all genocides are done by people who want to set the world right. It just how they see right is warped.

Post by specproc » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

rpdillon wrote: post #328

specproc wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting framing in "we should ask" and "social media companies should ban". We have sovereign states that make laws, companies must comply with them if they wish to make money in our markets. Otherwise, I think my perspective here is very similar. I'd personally emphasise legal publisher responsibility, a repeal of Section 230 in American. By absolving social media platforms of legal responsibility for the conten…

Section 230 is very important for all website operators. It doesn't just protect big companies. If you repeal it, now you're making every blog owner responsible for whatever some idiot says in the comments section.

Post by philipallstar » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #298

philipallstar wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an overview of the situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro

Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share? > The former childminder from Northampton, who is married to a Conservative councillor, had posted an abhorrent message on X, calling for people to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers following the murder of three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024. > Yet the fact both men were able to address a huge crowd in London is perhaps evidence t…