The original comment suggests that the policy is politically motivated. The commenter replied with other reasons for the policy other than political agitation. I think its a valid response.

I also don't buy the implied claim from the original commenter that age-limits are paternalistic/suppressive with regard to political thought/speech. Large tech platforms control political thought/speech on a regular basis, a lot of which is executed by state actors. Even in the absence of devious actors, algorithms are editorial by nature; they are not neutral infrastructure by any means.

▲

colordrops 3 days ago | parent [-]

No, sorry, it's orthogonal to the poster's comment, which states that, regardless of merit, the purpose of the ban is political. Arguing for or against it is beside the point.

Perhaps the original comment should have been more direct in and just said that Zionists are the ones pushing for these bans. The head of the ADL has made comments about this. A video by Sarah Hurwitz, Obama's speechwriter, went viral recently about how social media needs to be banned for young people because it's hurting the zionist movement.

https://x.com/jennineak/status/1992395176283922767

▲

biophysboy 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The head of the ADL is a firehose of stupidity; that does not mean he controls policy. I also reject the pretense that public opinion of Israel would be higher among teens without social media, given their actions over the past few years.

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Sevrene 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is a bit of a conspiracy colordrops, honestly. It's the same sort of stuff as on Infowars.

▲

colordrops 3 days ago | parent [-]

Is that all you got? Ad hominem?

▲

Sevrene 3 days ago | parent [-]

No sorry it wasn't a dig at you: the video was posted by someone who appears on Alex Jones' Infowars, talks jewish conspiracies. I just don't take that stuff seriously, doesn't make it wrong and if there's an argument you want to make I'll listen.

▲

colordrops 3 days ago | parent [-]

That video was literally posted by hundreds of accounts. I just picked the first one I found in search. And exactly how is "Jennine K" anything like Infowars? Did you even bother to look? Do you want me to find the exact same video from a "reputable" account? Can you address the contents of the video? It's direct and unedited, her exact words.

I assume you are a Zionist, based on your rhetorical techniques.

▲

Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-]

Zionism is when healthy information choices? I don’t trust infowars, sorry but that’s served me quite well over the years.

I did look, you’re being obtuse again, after all how else would I know it’s from an infowars adjacent account.

You strike me as the type of person who thinks e-safety commissioner is CIA, they also call me a zionist for doubting that- it’s the goto ad hominem for people embroiled with I/P conflict.

This sort of social media bs and the way it affects political discourse is why social media is so damaging, much of it is just political propaganda.

Tell me what do you take from the clip?

▲

colordrops 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are completely untrustworthy. You clearly have an agenda. Nothing I posted has anything to do with Infowars, so you multiple attempts to slander me expose that you are purely agenda driven. This thread is over.

	▲	Sevrene 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't really have an agenda but I have opinions I'm wanting to share & discuss– some of which I'm certainly wrong about. It doesn't feel to me as if you could honestly say the same. You don't want to believe what I say, you don't think of me as trustworthy. Well I'm not, and you don't have to. You are welcome to your own opinion. That should put me above the likes of many, including infowars and those on sharing that video who believe they know and have a right to say everything. I'm not the one invoking political agitprop here, I would have rather discussed the topic of the submission.