| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago |
| It's unrealistic to not install TikTok? Laws are not created to be malleable about the population's trivial mental illnesses. We don't need new laws on the books because some people are incapable of turning their phones off. They have addictive personalities and will fulfill this by other means, while everyone high-fives claiming success. |
|
| ▲ | ahhhhnoooo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For many people, it is unrealistic to uninstall Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Bluesky, whatever the fuck else all at the same time. I'm proud of you that you are as disconnected as you are. I'm the same -- ditched my addictive social media accounts back in like 2011 -- but not everyone is like us. |
| |
| ▲ | chickensong 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > but not everyone is like us There will never be anything close to uniformity, so we must decide if we cripple freedom to protect the weak while increasing bureaucracy and authoritarianism, or allow natural selection to take its course while improving treatment of symptoms. I'm empathetic to the struggle of addiction, which is a real and terrible thing, but I don't think we should create vague nanny laws as a solution. Even if you're an addict, personal responsibility is still a thing. | | |
| ▲ | TFYS 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > allow natural selection to take its course while improving treatment of symptoms. I have a feeling natural selection will take its course at the level of nations, with nations that do protect their weak surviving and the ones that let profit extractors exploit and abuse theirs dying off. | | |
| ▲ | kbelder 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Darwinism exists at the level of nations, but I think you may have the outcome exactly backwards. | | |
| ▲ | TFYS 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't think so, because it's not only the truly weak that get exploited and abused in an "every man for himself" system. It'll also destroy the lives of many who could become strong in an environment that protects them when they're weak. |
|
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >cripple freedom to protect the weak This is an exaggeration intended to provoke. >allow natural selection to take its course This is hideous. >I'm empathetic to the struggle of addiction You are very strongly implying that this is untrue. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is an exaggeration intended to provoke. No, I consider adding laws that ban a simple navigation technique as overreach and a reduction in freedom. To me it feels like banning candy bars because some people eat way too many candy bars. My intention wasn't to provoke, and you shouldn't make statements based off assumptions of someone else's thoughts. My intention is to point out that there's no one-size-fits-all solution, and that there are negatives associated with the top-down legal approach. I want to promote personal and societal responsibility instead of banning every harmful thing. > This is hideous. Yes, humans and life in general are filled with terrible things. Doom scrolling was created by us. We allow irresponsible and uncoordinated people to drive cars. > You are very strongly implying that this is untrue. So I'm lying because I don't think banning scrolling is the best solution? And you say I'm the one provoking... Have a nice day. |
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > we must decide if we cripple freedom to protect the weak Well, we do want to protect the weak (that's a function of society, after all), and I'm totally okay with removing infinite scrolling from social media apps (or "crippling freedom" as you put it). I don't see any significant benefit it provides to individuals or society. Indeed, it has a negative impact on both. So it sounds like a win/win. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not that infinite scrolling is good, I'm just not a fan of the legal solution because it sets precedent and is yet another law. I'm not an anarchist, I think some laws are needed, but I want society to be more engaged and responsible for our collective future, not helpless and dependent on laws and government to save us from ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | trymas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Let’s make crack/heroin legal then. Why waste space on the law books about population’s trivial illnesses (addiction). |
|
| ▲ | happytoexplain 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't put words in my mouth. I called your comment unrealistic, holistically. |
