[styxfrix]

Yeah. I've donated hundreds of dollars to the EFF, but cancelled my recurring donation after reading the EFF's response to that article because I believe the world would be a better place without social media. As you said, the EFF's article lacked scientific rigor - and its dismissal of non-physical harm sat especially poorly with me. I don't regret my previous donations to the EFF and still agree with their overall mission, but I can no longer support them.

[mardifoufs]

That's an odd take. So because you don't like something, you want it to be gone? I'm not sure you actually understood the EFFs goals ? I'm not trying to be rude but it just doesn't make sense to me. Some people don't like encryption, or porn. The eff always campaigned for keeping those things from getting restricted.

[styxfrix]

I think that something causes widespread harm and so I want that thing more regulated. If the EFF's article only touched on the First Amendment problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with them - it's the other parts which sat poorly with me. I believe that social media's desire and displayed ability to gain, maintain, and control people's attention is dangerous and that the government should highly regulate that danger. I continue to support free speech, including free speech on those platforms.