6 ms·

So, are you suggesting that the legal use of smartphones should be banned for anyone under the age of 18? What kind of society do you want to live in?

by Skyy93 2mo ago

tgv 2mo ago
A smart phone is a human right, according to you? Of course you can ban them. The addicts will have to wean off, but after that, there's no disadvantage.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  Considering it's how many people engage in speech, yes.
  - ares623 2mo ago
    And look where that has taken us. Perhaps that was true for the last few decades. But now that period is over, and our ability to exercise our right and to coordinate without it has atrophied to our great detriment. <tangent>And then we look at AI and think "surely this time it will be different"</tangent>
  - tgv 2mo ago
    What does that mean? The form suggests disagreement, but the content doesn't connect.
- Skyy93 2mo ago
  I think it is a human right that I decide for myself what is good for me and what is bad for me. I have for example Instagram and Facebook, but only to look what kind of Magic the Gathering Events are at the weekend, do I look at reels and doom scroll? No. So I would not say I am addicted despite having a smartphone. Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.
  - tgv 2mo ago
    That's even worse than saying: fentanyl helps me overcome pain, so it should be felt available to everyone. You're either a hardcore contrarian or a hardcore libertarian. Or living under a rock?
    - Skyy93 2mo ago
      Believe it or not, there are other ways for dealing with drug abuse then just banning everything. If one thing has become clear, it is that the war on drugs has failed. Instead of banning these products, they should be sold under a regulated and taxed system, with the tax revenue used to fund support programmes for those wishing to quit. For example, in many countries that legalized Marijuana the number of addicts did not significantly rose. Further the police now have even less to do, as they do not need to control these people if they are taking this drug.
      - tgv 1mo ago
        The drug dealers, i.c. Meta and consorts, do and will oppose regulation strongly. Didn't they get the blooming president of the USA himself to intervene on their behalf? That will lead too far too much leniency. Furthermore, the supply chain isn't comparable to drugs: you cannot illegally import facebook, and you cannot make a ton of money out of it. And legalization, i.e. the status quo, just keeps the problems too. It's a bad metaphor. BTW, I explicitly mentioned fentanyl. It is regulated. And we all know what happens when you release it for free. Now that I think about it, you didn't reply to the argument at all. You just mention war on drugs, then shift to marijuana in a kind of gotcha style and hope no-one notices.
        Skyy93 1mo ago
        I'm not sure the fentanyl argument works at all. People weren't informed or warned about the risks it could pose, and it was often given without their exact knowledge of what they were taking. Unlike social media, where many of the risks are widely discussed. So if you say the war on drugs is a bad metaphor I guess I could say the same about fentanyl?
hahahaa 2mo ago
The one we lived in 1995?
- Skyy93 2mo ago
  And why not the one 1895? Some people seem to prefer this as well, but you perhaps would not like it. If you prefer living without a smartphone its completly up to you and I would always stand for your right to not have one, but on the other side I am also standing for the right to have one if someone desires one.
  - hahahaa 2mo ago
    I mean there was a time where only adults would typically have a mobile phone.
    - Skyy93 2mo ago
      Times change. There was also a time where only man were allowed to vote, I do not get your point.
      - hahahaa 2mo ago
        Point is banning phones for kids might be the kind of society I want to live in.
  - defrost 2mo ago
    Are you also standing up for the right of 12 year olds to access porn and graphic violence though? That's a somewhat loaded question, I'll assume you're not (correct me if I'm wrong) and move on to the question of should 12 year olds have smartphones and if so how should they limit access to porn and graphic violence when used by 12 year olds? Please don't fob this off by requiring that all parents should have CS degrees or IT qualifications, that's not a thing.
    - pibaker 2mo ago
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ares623 2mo ago
There are degrees to it. The current problem has a "perfect storm" aspect to it, with multiple pieces working together in perfect harmony. 1. a "small" device that a person can use while moving 2. cheap/free internet access (wifi and/or mobile data) 3. high fidelity display with high refresh rate 4. a camera (I would probably group this together with 3) Disabling 2 or 3 of those would short circuit the delivery mechanism of the "opioid" while still allowing the device to fulfill its more "useful" purposes. Examples: - A small internet device without a hi-res display _and_ a camera is still useful for "knowledge at your fingertips", communication, navigation, payments, etc. - A device with a hi-res display, with a camera, with internet access, but not "small" is either a laptop or a tablet. That breaks the mechanism of one-half of social media addiction, which is the capability to instantly create and upload content right on the spot. (Although I would argue a tablet will still have that problem) - A camera that doesn't have internet access can still allow a user to record events, but uploading the content will have to be delayed to a later time. A fair trade-off in my opinion. And this is all possible with current hardware, by extending Parental Controls to disable the camera, and/or internet access, and/or handicapping the beautiful crown jewel displays.

So, are you suggesting that the legal use of smartphones should be banned for anyone under the age of 18? What kind of society do you want to live in?

by Skyy93 2mo ago

So, are you suggesting that the legal use of smartphones should be banned for anyone under the age of 18? What kind of society do you want to live in?

tgv 2mo ago

A smart phone is a human right, according to you? Of course you can ban them. The addicts will have to wean off, but after that, there's no disadvantage.

Cider9986 2mo ago
Considering it's how many people engage in speech, yes.
- ares623 2mo ago
  And look where that has taken us. Perhaps that was true for the last few decades. But now that period is over, and our ability to exercise our right and to coordinate without it has atrophied to our great detriment. <tangent>And then we look at AI and think "surely this time it will be different"</tangent>
- tgv 2mo ago
  What does that mean? The form suggests disagreement, but the content doesn't connect.
Skyy93 2mo ago
I think it is a human right that I decide for myself what is good for me and what is bad for me. I have for example Instagram and Facebook, but only to look what kind of Magic the Gathering Events are at the weekend, do I look at reels and doom scroll? No. So I would not say I am addicted despite having a smartphone. Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.
- tgv 2mo ago
  That's even worse than saying: fentanyl helps me overcome pain, so it should be felt available to everyone. You're either a hardcore contrarian or a hardcore libertarian. Or living under a rock?
  - Skyy93 2mo ago
    Believe it or not, there are other ways for dealing with drug abuse then just banning everything. If one thing has become clear, it is that the war on drugs has failed. Instead of banning these products, they should be sold under a regulated and taxed system, with the tax revenue used to fund support programmes for those wishing to quit. For example, in many countries that legalized Marijuana the number of addicts did not significantly rose. Further the police now have even less to do, as they do not need to control these people if they are taking this drug.
    - tgv 1mo ago
      The drug dealers, i.c. Meta and consorts, do and will oppose regulation strongly. Didn't they get the blooming president of the USA himself to intervene on their behalf? That will lead too far too much leniency. Furthermore, the supply chain isn't comparable to drugs: you cannot illegally import facebook, and you cannot make a ton of money out of it. And legalization, i.e. the status quo, just keeps the problems too. It's a bad metaphor. BTW, I explicitly mentioned fentanyl. It is regulated. And we all know what happens when you release it for free. Now that I think about it, you didn't reply to the argument at all. You just mention war on drugs, then shift to marijuana in a kind of gotcha style and hope no-one notices.
      - Skyy93 1mo ago
        I'm not sure the fentanyl argument works at all. People weren't informed or warned about the risks it could pose, and it was often given without their exact knowledge of what they were taking. Unlike social media, where many of the risks are widely discussed. So if you say the war on drugs is a bad metaphor I guess I could say the same about fentanyl?

hahahaa 2mo ago

The one we lived in 1995?

Skyy93 2mo ago
And why not the one 1895? Some people seem to prefer this as well, but you perhaps would not like it. If you prefer living without a smartphone its completly up to you and I would always stand for your right to not have one, but on the other side I am also standing for the right to have one if someone desires one.
- hahahaa 2mo ago
  I mean there was a time where only adults would typically have a mobile phone.
  - Skyy93 2mo ago
    Times change. There was also a time where only man were allowed to vote, I do not get your point.
    - hahahaa 2mo ago
      Point is banning phones for kids might be the kind of society I want to live in.
- defrost 2mo ago
  Are you also standing up for the right of 12 year olds to access porn and graphic violence though? That's a somewhat loaded question, I'll assume you're not (correct me if I'm wrong) and move on to the question of should 12 year olds have smartphones and if so how should they limit access to porn and graphic violence when used by 12 year olds? Please don't fob this off by requiring that all parents should have CS degrees or IT qualifications, that's not a thing.
  - pibaker 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

ares623 2mo ago

There are degrees to it. The current problem has a "perfect storm" aspect to it, with multiple pieces working together in perfect harmony. 1. a "small" device that a person can use while moving 2. cheap/free internet access (wifi and/or mobile data) 3. high fidelity display with high refresh rate 4. a camera (I would probably group this together with 3) Disabling 2 or 3 of those would short circuit the delivery mechanism of the "opioid" while still allowing the device to fulfill its more "useful" purposes. Examples: - A small internet device without a hi-res display _and_ a camera is still useful for "knowledge at your fingertips", communication, navigation, payments, etc. - A device with a hi-res display, with a camera, with internet access, but not "small" is either a laptop or a tablet. That breaks the mechanism of one-half of social media addiction, which is the capability to instantly create and upload content right on the spot. (Although I would argue a tablet will still have that problem) - A camera that doesn't have internet access can still allow a user to record events, but uploading the content will have to be delayed to a later time. A fair trade-off in my opinion. And this is all possible with current hardware, by extending Parental Controls to disable the camera, and/or internet access, and/or handicapping the beautiful crown jewel displays.