[mhardcastle]

Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents.

Also, there are some times when coordination would result in better outcomes than single disorganized actors. I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without it.

[atahanacar]

>Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents.

True. Companies who prey upon children and use their lack of experience as a source of income should be punished.

>I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without it.

Complete prevention would of course have a negative impact on kids when all their friends are hanging out on social media instead of getting together physically. The "correct parenting" here would be to educate your children about the dangers, always keep communicating with them, limit their endless scrolling, monitor what they share as much as possible, act quick in case of cyber-bullying etc. Social media can be beneficial for children if used correctly, but detrimental to their mental and physical health if left alone to the devices of profit-driven corporations.

The main conflict here is, whether the state should be involved in any of this process. My argument is, as long as it doesn't restrict my personal freedoms, state should do as parents wish because as you said, collective action is more effective than individual action. However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids.

[mhardcastle]

"However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids."

This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?

This is truthfully a very unfamiliar concept to me. Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent) and/or regulations that solve genuine coordination problems - starting with national defense and criminal justice - are fundamental to any civilization run through anything other than pure anarchy.

[atahanacar]

>This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?

I personally don't want to, because statistically around of the people are below average and I don't want my freedoms restricted because of them.

>Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent)

The taxes I pay benefit me, so it is an acceptable outcome. For example, if I paid for medical care out of my own pocked, I'd have to pay a lot more than any state would, because the state can have a greater control over prices when they are the only paying customer of healthcare.

Back to topic, no way I'm leaving anonymity on the table just because some people can't parent their kids.