[tardedmeme]

The categorical imperative should be used here. "Arrest people I don't like" fails the categorical imperative. However, "check things that destroy society and make everyone worse off except for a select few if left unchecked" easily passes the bar.

Nothing is absolute. There is a spectrum without an obvious optimal point. The recent neonazi rally in the UK did a lot of damage that could have easily been prevented.

Why does most of Europe have such a higher standard of living?

[antirealist]

So I agree that "check things that destroy society and make everyone worse off except for a select few if left unchecked" might indeed pass as a valid categorical imperitive.

Putting aside the slew of problems with Kantianism, the main issue here is one of epistemology. You think social media is destroying society. Some people think a departure from traditional family values is destroying society. You might be pretty sure you're right, but they're pretty sure they're right too.

I'd argue it's better we all just agree these questions are ambiguous and should in principle be outside of the power of the state to mediate. Especially since people are free to not use social media if they don't want to, or to have traditional families if they do want to. Otherwise we're all just fighting to impose our vision on everyone else. And even if you are right - that social media is destroying society - these policies aren't going to stop social media. Even if they could in theory, they will in practive be shoddily designed and implemented and have lots of other messy consequences (e.g. requiring me to upload photos of my face to use things, trusting that companies forced to handle that data will not only not misuse that data, but also be unhackable).

> Why does most of Europe have such a higher standard of living? I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is the answer is much more complicated than that they have proactive goverments.

[tardedmeme]

> I'd argue it's better we all just agree these questions are ambiguous and should in principle be outside of the power of the state to mediate

Murder is legal, then, and there's no point having a state at all.

[antirealist]

Murder is directly and non-consentually harming another person. Having a traditional family or using social media are choices you can, in our current world, make or not make for yourself. That's an important - and I think pretty philosophically clear - distinction.

And FWIW if the killing was consensual (i.e. euthenasia) then I think it should be legal.

[raxxorraxor]

With that position you would have made an excellent bishop or mufti in the 19th century. But today your position needs justification and you will probably not be able to convince a democratic majority to do away with hard earned and liked freedoms.