I think it speaks to the complete lack of government regulation in the area that people see such extreme answers as positive. If any government had seen fit to engage in light regulation of what social media can do people might be happier.

I can only imagine these people have never experienced such censorship.

Maybe they'll feel differently when they have to upload their ID and face scan (which later gets leaked) just to be able to read a recipe for beer or whatever.

It becomes even more wild when you put it next to the response to cloudflare getting blocked in certain European countries during sports matches.

People love to ask the big government daddy to step on them and when it actually happens they start wondering why would any sane person want that.

> I feel like we’ve completely lost the plot when we’re starting to invite government partial Internet shutdowns as a good idea. This is a totalitarian government play.

There's been criticism about the culture surrounding platforms like Mastodon/Bluesky that anticipated this.

> This is a totalitarian government play.

Putting China aside, and regardless about one's opinion on the aformentionned measure, I think you need first to learn the concept about totalitarian governement and representative democracy before trying to use those words because you clearly don't know what these are.

It's only 'lost the plot' if we still believe in the false narrative of cyber libertarianism.

There is potential harm in us doing regulation but there is also benefits thinking it's this binary option of free VS slavery is imo. Harmful.

But it's kind of a logical, if misguided, consequence of regulators being completely corrupt and letting those feudal lords do whatever the hell they want.

As opposed to totalitarian tech overlords?

[dead]

>I can understand regulating dark/abusive patterns, but at the end of the day I should be allowed to doomscroll at night if I [am an addict]

[dead]

This argument is lacking nuance. Just because there are some instances of paternalism one is prepared to accept, doesn't mean that every possible paternalist policy is always okay. Being in favour of some instances but not all, is not a logical inconsistency. We can talk about each instance on a case by case basis.

Seatbelt laws have very limited impact outside vehicle safety. Nor does it open a slippery slope that leads to buses and trains and elevators and dining chairs and beds getting their own seatbelts.

Regulation on speech threatens the basis of democracy. The fact that the countries pushing them most successfully (UK, Australia) are also the ones with serious freedom of speech problems compared to their Western peers should also tell you that no, they will not stop at throwing you in jail for memes on twitter.

personally yes, that kind of choice should belong to the individual not the government. besides that though the laws are nonsensical why is a seatbelt required in a car not not in a bus, why are motorcycles even allowed at all?

Yes. And I always wear my seat belt.

Yes, I do. Its just another way that cops can pull you over for bullshit charges and revenue enhancement.

I remember in my state, it was initially only a citation that couldnt be pulled over on. Then they flipped that and started pulling over for it. Why? Pure fucking money grab.

Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.