[mdp2021]

> Nor was what we were going for

And where did you intend to go? In front of "State cuts the services" you went "Oh I get advantages staying without them". Yes but see, there are 30 million people there that may have had different choice, and some of them with rational choice (and fully evidently so: the World Video Archive is in the ban), and those 30Mln are within other billions that may be in a similar situation. (Many of them are here, your peers in these pages.) In front of them, going "I found out there are bright sides" would make them go "Duude...".

> [Missing out on social media] is quite literally the bare fact itself

Very certainly not: Nepal has blocked YouTube... Being forbidden access the worldwide video library cannot be reduced to "cannot be able to post comments" (that many serious YT users will not do, not even having an account, by the way).

> a characterization

Gross logical fault: there is a coercion in there, and reframing it as protection does not remove the presence of the coercion, which remains a debatable problem. And by going towards "protection" you are confirming my point («not excluding the possibility of an inability to manage the wave of informational war»), which is again an extremely serious problem.

> I can choose to look through an uncountable number of philosophical lenses

And a number will reveal that the situation can be construed as serious. Were you to defend the idea that it were not serious, relativism will not help the substantial solidity of the argument.

> Did I ever question its seriousness?

Well, look, if the article is "they blocked the services", and you go you "feel better after doing without them", that heavily suggests you downplaying the seriousness!

Of course we could also have discussions about "could we revaluate the optimal level of those services in life balance", but maybe really not in front of "the State has decided for you"!

> there's lots of downsides to these platforms

Yes. That is also extensively discussed. But it is not in context: here, the matter is something decided for somebody else, and that there are a number of bigger problems (e.g. organized misinformation) that overseeing entities (States) will mismanage in their inability to counter them.

> Wake-up calls

You will probably be reassured that many of us are very much aware that having released transnational masses of substantial infants into echo chambers - to mention one of the foremost consequences - is a hell of a problem.

[perching_aix]

> And where did you intend to go?

Where I said I did. I explained it to you several times over. I can only do so much if you're not willing to listen or are unable to relate.

> (Many of them are here, your peers in these pages.) In front of them, going "I found out there are bright sides" would make them go "Duude...".

Cool - and if the same thing happened in Russia and I posted this to my Russian mates on Discord [1], as it happened before, they'd laugh their ass off first, and then we'd shift to discussing workarounds. According to what you explained so far of your world model though, things are either inappropriate or appropriate, and they are observer invariant and temporally static. I guess this would make my Russian mates wrong about what they themselves think or something?

Not very persuasive. I'm also not really sure why you think these peers on these pages need explaining why this situation is bad, or why they'd benefit from reading another endless charade, enumerating the same tired points, and making them spiral even further (since according to you, this was definitively coercive, so there's nothing they can do anyhow). Why there isn't and should not be a space for this specific angle, as it is inappropriate according to you, and even though it is not practically possible for you to have consulted those peers to get their opinion, you're just speaking in their name.

> Gross logical fault

There is a word for that, it's called a fallacy. I did not engage in any, which you must have also noticed, hence why you didn't say that instead.

I feel our "discussion" has run its course.

[1] Yes I did see Discord was blocked in Nepal. Please apply reasoning to fill the blanks.

[mdp2021]

Have you read the rest?

> not willing to listen

You think you show much hearing on this side? In front of what is happening in Nepal and elsewhere, the reduction of the matter to "oh a break from social media is healthy" is neither on point nor constructive - very simple. The constructive part you meant to convey, I still do not get.

> I did not engage in any

Apart from the one I pointed to and the other ones I have not mentioned? Not just precising the difference between fallacies and logical faults, but all the attributions of intention you expressed you construed, such as «explaining why this situation is bad». The latter was only pointed out to you because you clearly do not seem to get it, if you go "there are plus sides on not using social media" in front of of a government ban that closes the doors to a critical part of information to a population.

I hope you have seen the frontpage now, "14 Killed in protests in Nepal over social media ban" - which, as already a number of posts reveal, is not about social media. The benefits of your "abstinence" have little to do with this.

[perching_aix]

> Have you read the rest?

Regrettably yes, I did. It was a waste of time.

> You think you show much hearing on this side?

Yes.

> In front of what is happening in Nepal and elsewhere, the reduction of the matter to "oh a break from social media is healthy" is neither on point nor constructive - very simple.

I understand that that's your position. Would have been pretty hard to miss. I just feel otherwise. I'd think that's been hard to miss too.

> The constructive part you meant to convey, I still do not get.

That's regrettable. Unfortunately, you've spent all the empathy I had for you regarding this, so that's something you'll need to reflect on on your own terms if you want to figure it out.

> Apart from the one I pointed to

No, including that one, as that isn't one.

> because you clearly do not seem to get it

I'm not responsible for empathizing with myself on your behalf. I very clearly do get it, which you'd be able to appreciate, if you bothered to even consider its possibility.

> I hope you have seen the frontpage now, "14 Killed in protests in Nepal over social media ban"

I have not. Nepal is not what my world revolves around, and I've been working all day.

Not sure that's the most appropriate way to mention that by the way, you almost sound excited for it, as if those 14 people having deceased now lets you "prove" your point. Would be pretty dishonest and inciteful to frame it this way, right? Then why are you doing it to others?

> over social media ban" - which, as already a number of posts reveal, is not about social media

Can you be bothered to restrain yourself from encoding your conviction into every sentence supposedly meant to persuade? It's like announcing the decision before the trial.

It'd go an awful long way in at least making it appear like you actually wanted to persuade someone, rather than just talk about how hurt you feel and expecting to be finally heard for it by magical happenstance.

I get it, you think I should be treating this as if children were dying, as if there was a famine, whatever. I don't want to. I think that's beyond asinine and pointless. It can still be, and is, serious despite this, it's not a race. It can even escalate. It's also not just a single modality, things can be serious in different ways. Would be awfully cool if I didn't need to wade through your loaded sentences to be graciously allowed to have my own position, and not be portrayed as some heartless asshole for it.

> The benefits of your "abstinence" have little to do with this.

I disagree. Not sure how your insistence that we were being insensitive, and how that means we shouldn't have shared these things, helps these folks though.

By the way, you do recognize just how utterly ironic is it to campaign for us not to talk about something in a thread about censorship, right? I restrained myself from mentioning it so far, as a way to show some solidarity. But it's clearly not being appreciated, so fuck it.

Edit: I have since read the news on the unrest in Nepal. It did way more to contextualize this and why my comment might have been insensitive and misguided than this "discussion" ever could have. Turns out, mentioning that the place is volatile and despotic would have been pretty key info. It's still extremely hindsight heavy though. Like do you have even the remotest concept just how similar this news was in this thread to many many others before it? Where the place wasn't so unabashedly authoritarian that police is licensed to fire live ammo at citizens, and didn't result in an unrest and death? So far removed in perspective, no shit I didn't have a clue why you are making a scene! If this is you "raising awareness", there's a LOT you should improve on, holy shit.