[ryandrake]

> So out of all the things that are “controlling people’s minds” - drugs, alcohol, pay to win games, gambling sites, and the US news media, that’s where you draw the line?

I mean, all these things, if not banned, should at least be subject to regulatory limits. The concern is not the content itself, but the downstream effects on the population. We tolerate regulation on drugs, alcohol and gambling because of the serious negative aggregate effects they have on society. A democratic society based on rule of law should be able to collectively decide that the negative effects of some thing do not justify people's freedoms to do that thing. Without that principle, we might as well live in anarchy.

[scarface_74]

So do we really regulate that alcohol can’t be sold on Sundays because of the downstream effects or is it because of religion? Why would regulating of TikTok or other media not be based on the political leanings of whoever in power?

We also didn’t start regulating weed because of health concerns. It was because of racism.

https://time.com/5572691/420-marijuana-mexican-immigration/

How do you choose not to regulate content and still regulate its downstream effects? How is this different from when Tipper Gore wanted to regulate “violent video games” and rap music?

[ryandrake]

This comment is all over the place, but I think even the people motivated by religion and racism still justify their support of regulation with (at least perceived) negative effects on society. We can agree or disagree with them. Clearly minds are slowly changing on alcohol, drugs, and gambling.

Minds are changing on content and free speech, too. 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities[1] and the trend by age cohort is very clear and swift. We may disagree but we old people are aging out. Another poll[2] shows 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today.

I don't think you can regulate the downstream effects of content without regulating the content. Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.

1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-mil...

2: http://campaignforfreespeech.org/new-poll-free-speech-under-...

[scarface_74]

> This comment is all over the place, but I think even the people motivated by religion and racism still justify their support of regulation with (at least perceived) negative effects on society.

Is that suppose to be some type of justification for regulation - “because Jesus said so”?

> Its up to a democratic society to decide whether one outweighs the other.

You mean the same democratic society that made non heterosexual sex, interracial marriage, and Jim Crow illegal?

I would much rather give the government less power and you should to. No matter what side you are on, eventually someone on the opposite side is going to come along and use that power in a way that you don’t like.