Where do you get the idea from that your assessment of something as “toxic” (whatever that means exactly) gives you the right to stop others from doing it?
Have you considered what would happen if others did the same thing to you?
> I am fully aware that any negative sentiment towards social media makes young and insecure people terribly sad
Ad hominem through the back door coupled with missing the point entirely.
"Any negative sentiment" is very different from legislation and enforcement armed with machine guns and grenades.
Then, what is "social media"? It could be anything at all and it's likely to be defined as anything the king doesn't like, because... what else?
> I would make an exception for basic protocols
Once you are "extremely in favor of blocking young people" nobody would ask you about your subtle nuances, that's a given. I would suggest expressing only extremely cautious optimism because you obviously don't understand what kind of forces are involved here.
Thousands of new regulations promulgated every year, many of them deeply invasive into aspects of life that were previously considered the prerogative of individuals or families to decide (in this case, what children are and aren’t allowed to do).
And after two decades of watching this authoritarian and paternalistic process unfold, I’m still unable to point to a single aspect of society that has been improved by it in any way.
Social media is the modern smoking, harming not the arteries but brain circuits. And the governments are taking measures.
I am extremely in favor of blocking young people from social media. It’s just so toxic.
I would make an exception for basic protocols not associated with a single company or revenue stream, like IRC, though for educational reasons.
Where do you get the idea from that your assessment of something as “toxic” (whatever that means exactly) gives you the right to stop others from doing it?
Have you considered what would happen if others did the same thing to you?
Yes yes, I am fully aware that any negative sentiment towards social media makes young and insecure people terribly sad.
> I am fully aware that any negative sentiment towards social media makes young and insecure people terribly sad
Ad hominem through the back door coupled with missing the point entirely.
"Any negative sentiment" is very different from legislation and enforcement armed with machine guns and grenades.
Then, what is "social media"? It could be anything at all and it's likely to be defined as anything the king doesn't like, because... what else?
> I would make an exception for basic protocols
Once you are "extremely in favor of blocking young people" nobody would ask you about your subtle nuances, that's a given. I would suggest expressing only extremely cautious optimism because you obviously don't understand what kind of forces are involved here.
> because you obviously don't understand what kind of forces are involved here
The kind of forces that want to see fewer teenage girls attempt suicide?
Thousands of new regulations promulgated every year, many of them deeply invasive into aspects of life that were previously considered the prerogative of individuals or families to decide (in this case, what children are and aren’t allowed to do).
And after two decades of watching this authoritarian and paternalistic process unfold, I’m still unable to point to a single aspect of society that has been improved by it in any way.
[dead]