• theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.

    If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.

    As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.

      but that’s not the issue in question. The issue is social media is introducing negative mental effects into teens life. Which we can all agree is true to some extent.

      Now, how should we address this? Should we target specific elements like algorithmic timelines and lack of anti-bullying moderation which btw are 2 things that are scientifically proven here or we prohibit teens from accessing all social media even one that has no these harmful designs?

      Do you see how this is just a shitty policy no matter how you look at it? It doesn’t prevent big corps from making a bank and does zero things to address the actual issue. It’s fucking stupid.