[SpicyLemonZest]

The replies focus on the children aspect because that strips away the most challenging counterargument: why shouldn't adults be able to decide, as many if not most do, that they do get lots of utility out of their phones and don't much care about being spied on incidentally? It's hard to tell a story where smartphones are more dangerous than smoking, and despite being completely illegal for kids we mostly let people do it once they're old enough.

[Epiphany21]

>why shouldn't adults be able to decide

The majority of consumers are not tech-savvy enough to make informed decisions when it comes to electronics and their own freedom because the tech stack is just too complex, and even if they wanted to learn about it, most of the hardware and software is closed source and nearly impossible to modify. Most smartphone users don't even know that they're being spied on. To compound the problem, the companies that make the phones put out deceptive advertising claiming that these devices are private, and your data stays in your pocket. They're lying, and even the ToS agreement you click through during a new device setup says as much.

I reject the notion that a majority or even a plurality consent to this garbage.

[nisegami]

The majority of people aren't capable enough of making meaningful decisions about their political stances, but they can still vote.

[Epiphany21]

That isn't true at all. Citizens in countries without puppet governments have no problem informing themselves and contacting their legislators to drive real change.

In a place like the US, you get the illusion of choice. It's quite literally red team and blue team, and proponents of this system treat it exactly like a sporting event. The average American has zero ability to get any law changed or enacted.

A great contemporary example is the right to repair activism. Most people are sick of the "throw it away and buy a new one" mentality, and a lot of them are becoming very vocal in their support. This could be an easy way for politicians to boost their popularity and get reelected while doing real good in a bipartisan manner. Instead, these politicians pay the crowds lip service, sit on their hands and drag their feet while making up any reason not to do it. They know full well that their continued enrichment is contingent on the bribes they take and the connections they have, not your votes.

[TomSwirly]

> why shouldn't adults be able to decide

Because the average adult is completely uninformed on this matter. And this is no fault of theirs - life is far, far too complicated and busy to become experts on the thousands of things we participate in.

Luckily, we can rely on regulation. We plug in a new appliance and it doesn't blow up. Our cars rarely catch fire on the highway due to defects, and if they do, regulation and the legal system forces recalls.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Sure. The original piece isn't proposing that social media just needs a couple regulations, though - the author says they're convinced social media is bad even without the effects of being monitored.