[Eric_WVGG]

"history" "statistics" oh bravo you just said a pair of words. Here, I'll do the same thing: "History. Statistics." Now who's right?

"hatred for this subject"? Sure. I know a lot of people who had shitty parents. I know a pair of brothers who committed suicide because their father molested them. Many of my friends hate their folks. My own are terrific, incidentally. When I say those are privileged assumptions, that's because I have been reminded numerous times that I had a privileged upbringing.

Which, by the way, entailed parents whose life philosophy was hands-off, which further points out how vapid the notion that "parental controls would fix social media" is.

[primitur]

History: you only need to look beyond your own sphere to see that historically, yes, a majority of all parents, ever, have cared for their kids and wish for them to have a better future.

Statistics: if it were not so, we wouldn't have survived as a species, let alone been to the moon and been given the 'privilege' of iPhones, et al.

Privilege: oh look, you used a word.

[landryraccoon]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't account for how Facebook et al.. could have existed in the first place, or why there could be anything wrong with it.

Facebook exists. Parents let their kids go on it. Kids go on it happily. By your logic, since parents obviously care for their kids, and parents let their kids go on Facebook, Facebook is good for kids, parents and society as a whole. Statistics? Over a billion people signed up to use Facebook. Statistically, you're wrong and the people who like Facebook are right.

[na85]

You lost the argument as soon as you tried to play the privilege card.