6 ms·

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

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.)

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.)