[mdp2021]

> You think people only breathe because their "functional families" remind them of it?

No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managed.

> free-speech

Where would that be in topic.

> widespread mental health crises

And where is the assessment of the root causes. If shoes are bad and people's reaction is to ban walking, than we whole issue is in the people, right? In fact,

> intentionally promote personalized manipulation of public opinion

This is so close to that "episode" somewhere in the USA when the police gave trouble to a father and mother for having let the kid out of home for a walk "in a town where there is crime in the streets".

> Social Media bans for children as plainly stupid

Much, much worse than stupid. The uk has banned access to YouTube to kids (and the population did not seem to have started a loud choir of "Moron" to the administration), which is low beyond proportions. It is history books level unbelievable. It is incredible that it is not on everybody's mouth - and this also reveals that infrahumanity is due. Do see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48906979

> has killed democratic discourse

That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.

[moritzwarhier]

> No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managed

I still don't understand what you wanted to say with the analogy.

That people falling prey to social media in a manner similar to addiction would be comparable to not being able to control bodily functions?

If you wanted to say that broken families and a bad upbringing nurture all kinds of problems like this, and a good upbringing can help prevent them, I'd agree.

That doesn't mean there isn't a lot if grey area though. But mh, it seems that I just don't understand your point.

Also, I found using breathing as an example particularly strange, since it's an involuntary reflex and not learned in a family? Correct me there if this isn't true.

> That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.

Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media.

I'm not even sure if I think such a law helps anyone, I just understand neither fear nor outrage over it.

In my view, it has no effect at worst, or positive effects in the best case.

Re: free speech, I brought that up because I wanted to understand where you are coming from with your comment and viewing such a law as a form of censorship was my best guess.

[mdp2021]

> That people falling prey to social media in a manner similar to addiction would be comparable to not being able to control bodily functions?

Yes, if some people were so intrigued by their stamp collection or their (groundless, it seems, as plans require resource management) plans towards their anygoal to forget basic resource management, well bodily functions are basic resource management, and look it is "sleep" and similar we are talking about in the superficial side of this piece.

> If you wanted to say that broken families and a bad upbringing nurture all kinds of problems like this, and a good upbringing can help prevent them, I'd agree.

Pretty linear is it not? Let us also add that root causes are more in the area of the quality of upbringing than in the area of availability of the "dangerous". Let us also remember that it is not something like families having to fight the fashion of snorting salt, it is about families having to orient towards an awareness that salt is good on pasta while bad to snort - it is not like dealing with the spread of damaging chemicals.

> an involuntary reflex and not learned in a family

Proper self management is learned in a proper environment. And of course, preposterous similes are there for rhetoric effect. But the direction, yes, it's there: "John, you are not blinking. John, you are not assessing. John, you are not sleeping".

> Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media.

The place where the supposedly overly precious voice of the Intellectuals is to be found, faint as it happens to be.

> I'm not even sure if I think such a law helps anyone, I just understand neither fear nor outrage over it. // In my view, it has no effect at worst, or positive effects in the best case.

Primarily: they are encouraging age verification: if this is done with the tools proposed ("upload a passport", "validate yourself with an app" etc.) it will be the end of the Web. We will not use the Web if it is not perfectly anonymous, nor if it will require contracts with Google or similar, etc.

Foremostly: the administrators seem to be largely clueless about what they are doing, and this should be a giant alarm bell.

Critically: in the wretched uk, as I expressed, they are explicitly forbidding the young to access one of the most important repositories for culture - YouTube. What do we do then with the savages kept savages by law, we recycle them?! Why putting or keeping them on Earth then - is the island planned to be a "natural reserve"? Why enlarging the number of animals - especially as we so much need the other tail of the curve? Surely uncultivated things, and for imbecile reasons, cannot be considered equals to normal developed people.

So: it is disastrous already, and it may come to be the single most damaging thing of the century.

[moritzwarhier]

Thanks for your reply (preposterous smile, but meant honestly):

it's interesting, and there are parts which I understand and agree with, but also parts where I do not. I don't think I can add much more here, but of course, my inner contrarian has picked up one sentence which I'd reply to in strong disagreement:

> > Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media. > The place where the supposedly overly precious voice of the Intellectuals is to be found, faint as it happens to be.

Feels paradoxical, but I don't consider myself an "intellectual", I don't use much Social Media either, apart from HN and the occasional Reddit throwaway.

I hate showoff-"intellectualism" as much as the next guy, but I'm not gonna jump on the train of, for example, hating on baroque speech patterns or deep knowledge and education.

[mdp2021]

> I don't consider myself

You do not seem to understand that point. We are not talking about you (do you have books or papers out - who are you?). We did mean "know, prestigious intellectuals": academicians and renown experts.

The last public intervention of Niall Ferguson is of yesterday; that of Francis Fukuyama is of a few days ago; I see a Paul Scharre out in the past few days... All on YouTube, of course.

Repeat: either the kids have absorbed all of the higher culture we are so lucky today to have disseminated in immediately accessible places, or they can be disposed of as spoilt, wasted - useless. Higher culture that is chiefly on YouTube when in video form: kids are ___mandated___ to it. kier starmer and the things like him impede cultivation, kier starmer and the things like him will be considered less than trash, but actual lowly menaces in front of which everyone who does not express loud condemnation is guilty.

> I hate showoff-"intellectualism" as much as the next guy

I have no idea what you are talking about, you sound like the "downplayers" that find intellectual profiles "uncomfortable", the profiles that Asimov warned about over half a Century above. But, we need Professionals often and structurally, directly and indirectly, and the neighbourhood itself better not be ignorant - so, that "discomfort", already unjustified, would be completely improductive (in front of the Doctor, you will want extreme wits and competence, not "ooh I would relax more if you were relatable"). What would be «showoff-"intellectualism"» and why would it be relevant here?