4 ms·

Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?

achenet 8d ago
things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks). Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.
- stubish 8d ago
  In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.
- vintagedave 8d ago
  My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.
  - achenet 8d ago
    Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
    - vintagedave 8d ago
      Good points :) I think you and I likely largely agree, I just expressed myself poorly. > I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. > But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... > And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement. This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.)
- dinfinity 8d ago
  Does it harm other taxpayers if people are manipulated to believe that voting for Neofascists will make things better? Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. The problem with social media is that it is very new, very broad, and in part quite innocent (just communication with friendly people). Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon.

things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks). Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.

stubish 8d ago
In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.
vintagedave 8d ago
My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.
- achenet 8d ago
  Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
  - vintagedave 8d ago
    Good points :) I think you and I likely largely agree, I just expressed myself poorly. > I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. I know! But I have a hope in society, in our improvement as a species, that war and conflict grows less and less common. And I believe that should be a social aim. > But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". Right. Yes, I think I'd support 18+, but even for adults require the companies don't use addictive algorithms. That may seem inconsistent, but the reason is, gambling already exists. Addictive social media algorithms are new. It is much easier to prevent something new, than to deal with something millennia old. And I genuinely think wiser - that is, act to prevent it before it becomes something like gambling and alcohol. > but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media Yeah. It kinda does. But social media didn't require this in the past: it's developed it. So I feel it bans negative forms, not social media per se. But that said... > And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement. This is a really interesting comment! Why? (Not saying I disagree, for Youtube at least. But I'm really curious about this.)
dinfinity 8d ago
Does it harm other taxpayers if people are manipulated to believe that voting for Neofascists will make things better? Social media addiction is definitely much more detrimental to society than drug addiction, imho. Drugs aren't used by foreign adversaries to sow discord and chaos. We should not treat drugs and social media the same. I agree on your stance of 'tax and regulate' for drugs, but it should also be accompanied by heavy prevention efforts: people need to learn very early on how to have a healthy relationship with addictive things, whether it be gambling, alcohol, drugs, gaming, TV, or social media. This way they can protect themselves, in freedom. The problem with social media is that it is very new, very broad, and in part quite innocent (just communication with friendly people). Even if we could magically update the education system to teach people how to not be manipulated by social media, we are way too late to prevent the terrible effects they are having in adults and seniors. We need a way to educate or protect those in a non-authoritarian way. Otherwise the slide developed societies find themselves in today will hit rock bottom again very soon.