| ▲ | soulofmischief 9 hours ago |
| It's protecting the parents at the expense of the children. |
|
| ▲ | toasterlovin 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Interestingly, one of the things cults and totalitarian regimes have in common is a singular obsession with subverting the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship. |
| |
| ▲ | dayvigo 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One of the things all abusive and controlling parents have is a singular obsession with maintaining the primacy of the nuclear family and absolute parental authority. | | |
| ▲ | toasterlovin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Excellent riposte! (I’m already responding more thoughtfully in other areas of this thread, so won’t regurgitate the same points here) |
| |
| ▲ | sanderjd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm confused though, children getting information via unfiltered access to the internet is a subversion of "the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship", no? | | |
| ▲ | toasterlovin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I was agreeing with you. | | | |
| ▲ | wavefunction 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | that's just a kid, unsupervised
where are the parents in your scenario
anyways that's how I learned to fly, without the chains people like you want to throw on the rest of us
stay down there in the muck and grime | | |
| ▲ | sanderjd 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think this is unfairly assuming what I want, when I didn't specify that in my comment. |
|
| |
| ▲ | devmor 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The nuclear family is neither a natural nor ubiquitous relationship, though. Any other dynamic of social support - whether it be manipulative or freeing - may likely subvert it. | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You mean like our current totalitarian, oligarchical US government? | |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | sanderjd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Honestly curious: What does this mean? I'll expand a bit on my perspective to avoid just sealioning here: Where I've come across proposals for policies like actual age verification is in the "social media is bad for kids" milieu. I'm extremely skeptical that these proposals are workable purely technically, but ignoring that, I have some sympathy for the concept. I do think that kids mainlining TikTok and YouTube Shorts and PornHub is really bad. So having cleared my throat, I'm back to wondering about your comment. How, in your view, is this kind of policy "protecting parents at the expense of children"? |
| |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean there are many reasons that people say that TikTok is bad. If you think TikTok is bad because it promotes unhelpful or malicious advice around body standards, that's one thing. (See: bigorexia getting promoted into the DSM) If you think TikTok is bad because it puts children under a lens, that's another thing. If you think TikTok is bad because it exposes contrarian viewpoints that are not available on your television, like, say, something Gaza related, then that's yet another thing. | | |
| ▲ | sanderjd 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, but you also correctly guessed that I think TikTok is bad. But I don't relate to any of the reasons you listed. I think TikTok is bad for two reasons: 1. It is controlled by the government of China, and I don't trust them to avoid influencing Americans with propaganda. 2. It is bad in the same ways as all other social media. | |
| ▲ | econ 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The worse part of tiktok, like much of the web, is that it clips up your attention span into such tiny chunks that the consumer can NEVER feel the joy of thinking or talking. You can never voyage into someone else's mind deep enough to bee truly terrified or blown away, never see how they are fundamentally different from you nor why. All other complaints are a mere distraction by comparison. |
|
|
