[mixedbit]

If social media is harmful to children, each child deserves to be protected, no matter what is their parents' opinion. This is obvious for other harmful things, we don't argue that it is up to parents to decide if their child should be allowed to use alcohol or cigarettes.

[djrj477dhsnv]

Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government.

And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly.

Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.

[mixedbit]

The government already made the call, that's why due to child privacy or other protection laws, terms of service of social media platforms require age 13 or up. My complain is that companies pretend they are unable to enforce it.

[freejazz]

>Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government.

Is that what Meta's research indicated?

[djrj477dhsnv]

Its subjectivity is a fact, so no research required.

[freejazz]

Are you saying that the sexual predation of minors is not objectively harmful to them? Are you aware that the sexual solicitation of a minor is a crime?

[djrj477dhsnv]

I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. I personally agree that it is harmful for minors up to some age. So again I would maintain it's the parents' responsibility to protect them until they reach that age.

[freejazz]

Do you think the sexual solicitation of minors should not be illegal? Whether or not it's the parent's responsibility to protect their own children is besides the point. It can also be true that others facilitate and turn a blind eye. I can only assume you think a party in the scenario (one who connects a child with a sexual solicitor) should bear no responsibility? Either civilly or criminally?

> I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful.

How principled of you. Why don't you go shoot yourself in the head and report back.

[zasz]

Ahaha, by this logic we should just ban vaccines if that's popular.

[djrj477dhsnv]

What? I'm saying the government shouldn't be involved in bans at all. It should be up to the individual or their legal guardians.

[freejazz]

Yawn. Is this supposed to be charming? Principled? I don't get your shtick. People act like it's politics but it really comes off more as just being foremost disagreable and unreasonable.

Jumping into a conversation about pedophiles to offer that their harms are only subjective is just ridiculous but for some reason I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to realize that was wrong.