It’s essentially manipulation of the dopamine system in the exact same way as casinos except it’s worse because it uses AI to really start personalising what keeps us hooked. Would you let your children become addicted to gambling?
If you don't want your children to become addicted to something, be a good parent and monitor them. It is not the government's or the society's responsibility to babysit your kids.
I don't want my freedoms taken away from me (in this case, freedom to anonymously use social media) just because some people don't have the capability or the motivation to parent their kids properly.
Also, this "what about the children" thing is a very dangerous slippery slope. The same argument is being used by backwards governments around the world to ban anything LGBT related in public.
But society stops minors from doing all sorts of harmful behaviors, like drinking, drugs, gambling, guns etc. I think we should consider limiting the algorithms applied to teenagers at least to being much simpler and maybe not allow personal information to be used. I don't think this is some loss of freedom we need to worry about.
>But society stops minors from doing all sorts of harmful behaviors, like drinking, drugs, gambling, guns etc.
None of which affect my freedoms.
>not allow personal information to be used
I 100% agree with this. If a kid can't consent for anything else, how can they consent for their data being collected and processed?
>I don't think this is some loss of freedom we need to worry about.
You may not worry, but I do. Online anonymity is important for people ruled by shady governments, and there is no guaranteeing your government won't become a shady one in your lifetime. There are multiple examples of this worldwide, both in the past and present.
The reasoning is simple: If it were the government's responsibility to babysit your kids, it would be acceptable for them to restrict my freedoms in doing so. However, it is neither their, society's nor my responsibility, so my freedoms shouldn't be restricted for that cause. If it doesn't restrict my freedoms, I don't care, government can do whatever parents want, whether it be ban the sale of alcohol to kids, stop them from gambling or whatever.
I understand your reasoning I’d just rather we were more careful about how social media works, especially the use of LLMs integrated into advertising and addiction systems, for example. I think you already seem to think I have a fully formed plan of what the regulations should be, I definitely don’t want infringe free speech but I think teens are especially vulnerable to abuse on these platforms and suicide amongst teenage girls particularly has increased as these systems became more mainstream.
I think there is a balance to be had here but I get that you disagree and are scared of government getting it wrong.
>I understand your reasoning I’d just rather we were more careful about how social media works, especially the use of LLMs integrated into advertising and addiction systems, for example.
I completely agree.
>teens are especially vulnerable to abuse on these platforms
Not only on these platforms, but everywhere else too. What we definitely need is more support programs for these people, and more education for both them, their parents and society in general. Mental health is an issue that still is not being given enough attention to.
> If you don't want your children to become addicted to something, be a good parent and monitor them. It is not the government's or the society's responsibility to babysit your kids.
It's both's responsibility. There's a reason why many countries forbid, for example, television ads that directly target children. As a parent you cannot completely shield what your kids are exposed to, many aspects of life are outside of your control (e.g what types of ads appear on your videos/TV) and that's where it becomes the government's problem.
Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents.
Also, there are some times when coordination would result in better outcomes than single disorganized actors. I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without it.
>Companies will only get better at creating addictive products for children. This represents an ever-increasing burden for parents.
True. Companies who prey upon children and use their lack of experience as a source of income should be punished.
>I talk to parents who say they WOULD prevent their kids from using social media, but it would have negative social impacts on their kids for them to be the only ones without it.
Complete prevention would of course have a negative impact on kids when all their friends are hanging out on social media instead of getting together physically. The "correct parenting" here would be to educate your children about the dangers, always keep communicating with them, limit their endless scrolling, monitor what they share as much as possible, act quick in case of cyber-bullying etc. Social media can be beneficial for children if used correctly, but detrimental to their mental and physical health if left alone to the devices of profit-driven corporations.
The main conflict here is, whether the state should be involved in any of this process. My argument is, as long as it doesn't restrict my personal freedoms, state should do as parents wish because as you said, collective action is more effective than individual action. However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids.
"However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids."
This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?
This is truthfully a very unfamiliar concept to me. Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent) and/or regulations that solve genuine coordination problems - starting with national defense and criminal justice - are fundamental to any civilization run through anything other than pure anarchy.
>This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?
I personally don't want to, because statistically around of the people are below average and I don't want my freedoms restricted because of them.
>Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent)
The taxes I pay benefit me, so it is an acceptable outcome. For example, if I paid for medical care out of my own pocked, I'd have to pay a lot more than any state would, because the state can have a greater control over prices when they are the only paying customer of healthcare.
Back to topic, no way I'm leaving anonymity on the table just because some people can't parent their kids.
> Would you let your children become addicted to gambling?
The problem is worse because it's not up to the parents. Even if the kids opt out, they will now feel excluded because all their peers are on social media, they will still be a victim of the gossip mills and other nastiness present on social media even if they're not directly participating. That's why a blanket-wide ban for under-18s or under-16s is necessary.
If schools are so toxic then maybe we should rethink schools. Either have a true nuke-from-orbit zero tolerance to harrassment or have people who care do homeschooling.
