[taylorswift_]

can social media kill you though? I mean all this talk of regulating social networks is under the assumption that it's something you need to have. I would argue that safe shelter is a true human need, but posting cat gifs or pictures of drunken escapades or political musings does not seem equally comparable and thus I do not see how regulation does anything other than hamper competition.

[decebalus1]

> can social media kill you though?

Yeah, it can and it did. Not only did the Ashley Madison leak led to a few deaths, check out what happens in countries where homosexuality is punished by death when private information goes public...

[wtfstatists]

The States killed those people not Ashley-Madison.

[lmkg]

It can be both. Responsibility is not a conserved quantity. Entities who take on private data should be considering the effects of that data becoming released, including what others may use it for.

[ryandrake]

“It could kill” is a pretty high bar for accepting that something needs to be regulated. We accept regulations on other data collection / storage activities, like financial data and health data. We also have licensure for occupations where public safety or wellbeing is a concern but lives are not necessarily on the line.

[mannschott]

> can social media kill you though?

I assume you're aware of this: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/13/un-says-facebook-is-accele...

[taylorswift_]

I don't think it's an equal comparison... the effects of social media on societies is a somewhat subjective matter. It's more likely that social media is just another tool that exposes the underlying human nature.

That said, if a fire occurs in my shelter and I don't have sprinklers installed, I could die.