[hayst4ck]

I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.

> legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.

What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?

You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents."

The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element.

Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.

[komali2]

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?

The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that simple), is the so far most effective method to reduce usage of these substances.

Thus the highly retributive, reactionary USA government, or its local manifestations, can't be trusted to make these kinds of laws well.

Great, it banned tik tok for the kids. It passed a morality law. You know, fox news isn't really news, and some have suggested to that it provides a direct path to radicalization that leads to political violence. We should probably ban that, too. Don't worry, if you want to watch it, you can unlock it by applying at the local Office of Moral Wellbeing, just provide a photocopy of your photo ID and proof of address for them to file. That way if Fox changes channel registration, they have a list of all the people that watch it, so they can send someone to let you know the channel number changed.

[hayst4ck]

I agree with the first half.

TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example.

You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction engineers working on creating the state of addiction. Engineers working on figuring out how to get people to spend the maximum amount of time possible on the apps.

At some point it becomes a health issue. Stimulus is stimulus. Dopamine dysfunction is real.

What's the difference between scrolling an infinite feed for 10 hours and feeling good on an opium den couch for 10 hours? I am not saying that's a perfect comparison, but I don't think it's as simple as morality. These social media apps cause real biological response and there are engineers literally working on manipulating those responses.

[komali2]

I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin.

The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.

Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.

I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."

There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.

[hayst4ck]

I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. I think taxing them for usage that exceeds a reasonable amount of time might be a reasonable policy. I think it would be ok to 100% tax any advertising profit gained after 1 hour of use. I suppose that creates a conflict of interest because then the government directly benefits from over-use which is its own hazard. I think the most American approach would be to codify that Facebook (or other social media) is directly liable for medical treatment related to social media use creating a feedback mechanism that disincentivizes bad behavior.

I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.

I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.

> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.

I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.

Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.

In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.

Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.

Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.

I don't know how to deal with that.

Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?

[komali2]

> I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.

Basically yes.

> Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.

I only use the Fox news example as a wake up call to conservatives cackling gleefully as the government of Ohio shutting down access to a social media platform.

Actually the core of my fear revolves around that: the American government at all levels, in any state, is highly reactionary, and I'm afraid of it using its newly discovered power to get away with this sort of thing to start banning communication among leftists. Or, something I think it will try in the next two years, banning communication among LGBT people.

Well, I guess this is where I wish communities had more power to organize their own protections and arrangements. Imagine if one town wanted to ban fox news for example, the USA government would probably step in and enforce a lawsuit against them. It seems the power dynamics are out of wack.

[veec_cas_tant]

> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?

The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.

> ...rest of the comment

I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.

[hayst4ck]

> Sorry, I don't know what this means.

You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent."

So I asked:

  What do you think the person you are responding too's position is?
  What do you think is the best defense for that position?
  What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense?

I think the tobacco industry is an obvious industry to make reference to. I think now days most people who don't smoke would be happy to see it regulated away and I think it would be an extremely fringe position to think the tobacco industry should be able to advertise to kids today.

> I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.

Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad.

How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad?

We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children.

Facebook is modern day tobacco.

I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument.

> that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.

When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit.

The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.

[watwut]

> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.

Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.

Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.

I am not about to defend either.

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?

I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It