7 ms·
What's very obviously unnecessary is the need for a law to police this. You can just not use things you don't like. This need to project one's own morality upon
by ahnick 2mo ago
What's very obviously unnecessary is the need for a law to police this. You can just not use things you don't like. This need to project one's own morality upon others will be the source of endless conflict.
- zeroonetwothree 2mo agoThe law being discussed is for minors. As a society we don't think minors have sufficient executive function to make those decisions, so we find it acceptable to ban them in those context.
- ahnick 2mo agoAlternatively: As a society we don't think ALL minors have sufficient executive function to make those decisions, so we let parents who do make that decision.
- mindwok 2mo agoThis isn't useful advice for addictive things that have high short term reward and high long term regret though. Especially so when the other party has a strong incentive to keep you trapped in that loop of regret.
- kelseyfrog 2mo agoExactly. Also, for responders, let's skip past the "if addicts didn't want to use them they wouldn't," and go straight to framing it as a moral failing implying that they deserve it.
- gghackernewsgg 2mo agoI don't consider addiction a moral failing. But I do think it's wrong to place all the blame on social media if you also play an active role in sustaining your addiction.
- semilin 2mo agoAbsolutely. While we're at it, why should asbestos be regulated? You can just not go in buildings that have it.
- pjc50 2mo agoThis is basically the Californian Prop 65 compromise: put up a sign saying the building contains carcinogens, but not actually do anything about them.
- bcjdjsndon 2mo agoSo log off? If you think it's really that bad why are you anywhere near a screen at all?
- pjc50 2mo agoDo you know what a negative externality is?
- telchior 2mo agoThere's good reason for a lot of the inaction around asbestos. If it's not moving, not being touched and not accessible to kids / pets etc then it's fine to leave alone. The alternative being extremely costly remediation, and there are still millions of structures with asbestos in them. ... Prop 65 is dumb though. Kind of a trend in California law.
- brandonmenc 2mo agoCall me when "infinite scroll" causes cancer.
- denkmoon 2mo agoIt is a cancer of the body politic.
- bradleykingz 2mo agoit kinda does?
- bigmadshoe 2mo agoWe can decide to pass laws to protect people from addictive behaviors. Do you support bringing cigarette advertising back for example?
- slopinthebag 2mo agoYes.
- bigmadshoe 2mo agoWhat is the cost-benefit analysis that led you to that conclusion? I ask as someone who enjoys smoking but struggles to see any good argument for the return of tobacco advertising.
- slopinthebag 2mo agoNo cost-benefit analysis, I have a philosophical aversion to controlling speech.
- bigmadshoe 2mo agoInteresting. I guess I don’t see corporations as people, and thus I don’t see this as a violation of free speech.
- slopinthebag 2mo agoHm, even if a corporation wasn’t simply a group of people, it seems like cig ads are banned even if it’s a single person wanting to air one.
- bspammer 2mo agoWould you allow advertising class A drugs? TV adverts on kids channels for heroin? Your position is absurd, I’m sorry.
- nradov 2mo ago
- afavour 2mo agoThat statement leans very hard on the word “like”. Do addicts “like” their addictive behaviors? In a way it doesn’t matter, they’re going to keep doing it anyway.
- xg15 2mo ago> You can just not use things you don't like. The entire point of talking about addiction (or even harmless things like FOMO, network effect, etc) is that this is not true.
- ahnick 2mo agoThis societal view that you are a powerless NPC slave to ones desires/addictions is highly toxic. It is not in fact binary for most people and people do have free will to make different choices. To absolve the individual of accountability is to undermine the very fabric of society. The way individuals typically overcome addiction is through reliance on close family & friends. Those family & friends can "take the phone away" or "uninstall the app" if there is really an issue. Laws are a blunt instrument and should be used sparingly.
- inigyou 2mo agoThis is sparingly. The government basically let the tech industry run amok for 20 years and only acted when the problems it was causing were serious and undeniable.
- tt24 2mo ago> only acted when the problems it was causing were serious and undeniable. I wish we lived in the word you think we live in :( In reality regulatory capture has infested nearly everything.
- carljungslabtek 2mo agoI’m a Buddhist, so I really do see what you’re saying about personal responsibility and agency, but the other problem I see is that the companies at the forefront of these ultra-addictive industries (including mass social media) get busted eventually every single time for working overtime to hide what they knew about how damaging their products can be, and in fact to convince the public that their products do the opposite of what they actually do. Does nicotine have some beneficial health effects? Yeah, it actually does. But do they outweigh the downsides (and societal costs)? Absolutely not. I do believe strongly in individual freedom of choice, but only under a paradigm of informed consent, and companies like Meta have never allowed that to happen and they never will, because the truth getting out could destroy their bottom line.