I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn because the people running the social media companies have bought our politicians.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn I am not confused.
It is easier to target children instead of billionaires.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress. He said that children don't access Facebook. When returned to testify again Zuck admitted that not only do children access Facebook, they are being harmed knowingly by the platform because it's profitable. He lied to Congress under oath. Which he then admitted when he returned to Congress. Why isn't he in jail? I have been reading about his crimes for the past decade. No legislation. No protection. He creates addiction for ad revenue.
-
@quinn because the people running the social media companies have bought our politicians.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn I think the legislators are working on the wrong end of the problem.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn That's because it's not about protecting children, it's about forcing adults to upload their private identifying information so they can be better tracked under surveillance. It's similar to when the FBI recently said using a proxy will place you under government scrutiny. The USA's corrupt oligarchs really, really hate privacy.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn All such "protections" are like most other kinds: protection for investors from liability risk.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn The social media companies are the ones pushing this legislation because it moves the liability away from them, and puts it on the child, the parent, and whatever age/identity verification service ends up being used.
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
@quinn To me it's a "not just but also", it affects everyone besides kids and we should be banning social media companies who have been shown to harm anyone. Free speech is nice and all but falls apart at the point it is actively harming others, you might be free to speak but it doesn't mean there is no limit on what you can say nor that you'll suffer no repercussions for the harm they could cause.
-
@quinn That's because it's not about protecting children, it's about forcing adults to upload their private identifying information so they can be better tracked under surveillance. It's similar to when the FBI recently said using a proxy will place you under government scrutiny. The USA's corrupt oligarchs really, really hate privacy.
@GabeMoralesVR @quinn They love privacy... for them. They are permitted privacy and freedom from overzealous scrutiny but us as non-monied types may as well live in glass houses for how many rights to privacy they think we should have.
-
System shared this topic
-
I'm endlessly confused by the wave of legislation to ban children from accessing social media, rather than banning social media companies from harming children.
And yes I know Free Speech but now we know that we can torture and sicken people, including kids, in this medium. Some of the things we currently call Free Speech turn out to be poison, mental control, and torture.
At some point we have to separate the "innovation" from the digital lead and asbestos tech companies are feeding people.
Whenever some politician or lobbyist group says children should be banned from social media, substitute “children” with “women” or “black people” and see if you still think it's a good idea. See if you still think justifications like “their developing brains” still hold up.
Because I assure you, if social media was invented a century ago, the proposals to ban women and black people from it would have used the exact same excuses.
-
Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress. He said that children don't access Facebook. When returned to testify again Zuck admitted that not only do children access Facebook, they are being harmed knowingly by the platform because it's profitable. He lied to Congress under oath. Which he then admitted when he returned to Congress. Why isn't he in jail? I have been reading about his crimes for the past decade. No legislation. No protection. He creates addiction for ad revenue.
@FranceskaMann @quinn A lot of these laws fall under the civil law category, which basically have no teeth other than a proverbial slap on the wrist and work under an honor system.
Wherein if these laws were criminal laws, Zuck would be facing criminal charges and being arrested.
In other words, rampant corruption from up top is allowing this shit to happen.
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic -
Whenever some politician or lobbyist group says children should be banned from social media, substitute “children” with “women” or “black people” and see if you still think it's a good idea. See if you still think justifications like “their developing brains” still hold up.
Because I assure you, if social media was invented a century ago, the proposals to ban women and black people from it would have used the exact same excuses.
As for torturing and sickening people:
I was bullied in school at the age of 12. After that, my only source of friendship and conversation was online. My main source of joy was tinkering with computers.
If I had been banned from computers and the Internet, as is now being proposed for children that age, I would have had nothing to do and no one but my parents to talk to.
*That* is torture. *That* would have made me sick. And that isn't being perpetrated by social media companies.
