| > 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. |
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.