Social media should be banned like pesticides, fossil fuels and other things harmful to the society.
constantcrying 4 days ago [-]
You are posting this on something which can only be described as "social media".
There is enormous value in letting humans communicate freely through the internet and any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.
By the way, fossile fuels are partly responsible for the greatest uplift in human quality of life. Pesticides are essential in creating a sustainable food output.
bigbadfeline 4 days ago [-]
Collectively, "social media" is basically everything that allows interactive expression and evolution of different opinions online. The manipulation of Big Social is simply a deterrent to that process, in effect it's a tool against good social media.
> any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.
Also, misuse can be addressed in different ways, blanket bans and surveillance-enabling authentication are misuse themselves.
hshdhdhj4444 4 days ago [-]
> By the way, fossile fuels are partly responsible for the greatest uplift in human quality of life. Pesticides are essential in creating a sustainable food output.
Yeah, and they are not sentient beings we owe something in return to.
When they were useful we used them. Now that they’re more harmful than useful we stop using them.
I don’t understand the moralizing around that.
kelseyfrog 4 days ago [-]
And Carrie Nation was hypocritical for entering bars. The world isn't black and white enough for such gotchas to work.
simianwords 4 days ago [-]
maybe this person is really trying to make this point
PearlRiver 4 days ago [-]
Social media algorithms definitely should. Fourteen year old girls do not need an AI to make them even more miserable.
trueismywork 4 days ago [-]
What you probably mean is recommendation systems shoukd be banned
simianwords 5 days ago [-]
None of those things are banned completely nor are only harmful in society.
Both of them are regulated but it is understood that they are critical to society without which a lot of stuff won’t happen
i7l 5 days ago [-]
What won't happen in society without social media?
pjmlp 5 days ago [-]
Social media has existed for centuries, in the old days it was village rumors.
i7l 4 days ago [-]
Not at anything resembling the instantaneous global reach of today.
pjmlp 4 days ago [-]
The world was different then, but printed press and later the telegraph certainly helped.
Or centuries in between where folks used to go village to village telling tales for a few coins.
Meaning there was always something kind of widespread, even if it wasn't at the scale of computer networks connected world wild.
1718627440 4 days ago [-]
It's fine if you like that definition, but that is not what we currently use when talking about "social media bans".
simianwords 5 days ago [-]
Our conversation
SilverElfin 4 days ago [-]
> The parties want an "enforceable European minimum age of 15 for social media, with privacy-friendly age verification for young people, as long as social media are not sufficiently safe
I will never trust that a solution will actually be privacy friendly. Even if someone could imagine a technical path to it, I just don’t trust governments to care about privacy. Eventually it’ll mean that we can’t speak online with anonymity.
Factually incorrect, because there is no "new Dutch government" yet. At the moment those plans are just an agreement between three parties who are hoping to form a minority government.
They first need to convince enough other parties to get a majority on the vote to allow them to actually govern, and then they also need to go scavenge for enough votes for every single piece of their plan - which will inevitable result in a quid-pro-quo with the other parties.
There are a bunch of festering problems the Dutch politicians have been avoiding for years now which really have to be solved by the next government. No matter the solution, it is going to be deeply unpopular. This minority coalition is going to have very little political capital left to spend on its own plans, so I highly doubt they'd waste it on something like a social media ban.
You've got to remember: their program is nothing more than a moonshot. There is no way they are ever going to realize all of it, and none of them care enough about social media to make it a hill they are willing to die on.
4 days ago [-]
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 5 days ago [-]
No. Ban smartphones. Better for more of society.
danielbln 4 days ago [-]
Please don't take away my pocket super computer that helps me navigate because too many people can't keep their fingers off Twitter and TikTok.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4 days ago [-]
Its called a map. They come on paper.
johnisgood 4 days ago [-]
Yeah. I feel the same way with many other things. This is why we cannot have nice things. sighs
ramon156 4 days ago [-]
Should we also take away their television? Do comic books make people dumb too?
I get the argument, but it's just not a solution
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4 days ago [-]
Yes it is. The internet is something you should sit down to use. Adults or children should not be followed by it everywhere they go.
weezing 3 days ago [-]
Ok grandpa
andsoitis 5 days ago [-]
"The current EU minimum age stands at 13."
JohnnyLarue 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 03:10:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
There is enormous value in letting humans communicate freely through the internet and any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.
By the way, fossile fuels are partly responsible for the greatest uplift in human quality of life. Pesticides are essential in creating a sustainable food output.
> any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.
Also, misuse can be addressed in different ways, blanket bans and surveillance-enabling authentication are misuse themselves.
Yeah, and they are not sentient beings we owe something in return to.
When they were useful we used them. Now that they’re more harmful than useful we stop using them.
I don’t understand the moralizing around that.
Both of them are regulated but it is understood that they are critical to society without which a lot of stuff won’t happen
Or centuries in between where folks used to go village to village telling tales for a few coins.
Meaning there was always something kind of widespread, even if it wasn't at the scale of computer networks connected world wild.
I will never trust that a solution will actually be privacy friendly. Even if someone could imagine a technical path to it, I just don’t trust governments to care about privacy. Eventually it’ll mean that we can’t speak online with anonymity.
They first need to convince enough other parties to get a majority on the vote to allow them to actually govern, and then they also need to go scavenge for enough votes for every single piece of their plan - which will inevitable result in a quid-pro-quo with the other parties.
There are a bunch of festering problems the Dutch politicians have been avoiding for years now which really have to be solved by the next government. No matter the solution, it is going to be deeply unpopular. This minority coalition is going to have very little political capital left to spend on its own plans, so I highly doubt they'd waste it on something like a social media ban.
You've got to remember: their program is nothing more than a moonshot. There is no way they are ever going to realize all of it, and none of them care enough about social media to make it a hill they are willing to die on.
I get the argument, but it's just not a solution