[nekochanwork]

I don't disagree with the claim that brainrot literally rots brains. But, I strongly oppose laws that ban social media on the grounds of "protecting children."

Parents are fully capable of monitoring and regulating their children's internet usage without Daddy Government getting involved.

[codydkdc]

this is a bad argument in the abstract. "drivers are fully capable of navigating intersections without Daddy Goverment getting involved" so we shouldn't have traffic laws and stop lights

the evidence says otherwise. I agree an outright ban probably isn't the best solution

[AlexandrB]

I would argue that traffic laws and signage is more about efficiency than capability. Not every country has a culture of following traffic laws and people still manage to navigate motor vehicles around somehow.

My personal experience with this is from Mexico where, in heavy traffic, lanes are not really a "thing" and people will pack their vehicles in wherever possible. This leads to much more chaotic traffic flow and more unexpected stops though.

[charlie90]

Except parents can't control what their children's peer's internet usage is. A common argument to let kids use social media is that their friends use it and they would be left out. This problem can't be solved by individuals, it needs collective action.

[tstrimple]

And some kids feel left out because their parents won't buy them a Stanley water bottle that their peers have. Guess we need to ban Stanely water bottles so those kids don't feel left out. Won't someone think of the children?!

[hnpolicestate]

The correct argument has become taboo in our technocratic puritan age. The only word that matters now is SAFETY, no matter the collateral damage.