[wkat4242]

> Do you really suppose it's been 70 years since people thought that "[giving agency] back to the community and caring about our neighbors and bettering ourselves, exercising, sleeping" were good ideas? Or that holding those values is backwards at all, let alone by that much?

That's just some virtue signalling for his republican backers. Family and community values, we could leave our doors unlocked, country life, tech evil blablah

And no, I don't want him forcing conservative values on everyone but shutting down social media or even the internet as he seems to propose.

I do agree that social media has net negatives for society but forbidding is not the solution because it has positives too. Regulating the tech companies is. Forbidding engagement-driving algorithms will go a long way (especially since negative emotions are the most powerful drivers of engagement)

[zahlman]

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I think it's clear that "we have to turn it off" here means "it's important for all of us to stop listening to the 'conflict entrepreneurs'", rather than "I intend to prevent you from using the Internet". In fact, I can perfectly well interpret the quote as a call to "regulate the tech companies" and "forbid engagement-driving algorithms" instead. Would that not equally well be "turning off" what the "conflict entrepreneurs" are serving us? Would that not equally well be "taking back agency" and "giving it back to the community"?

I assume you don't think that the political right has a monopoly on ideas like self-improvement, responsibility to the local community etc.; so how exactly should he have said this to avoid the appearance of "virtue signalling"?