| ▲ | _heimdall 20 hours ago | |||||||||||||
I'd dig deeper on the problem though. More fundamentally, laws like this are based on the fundamental assumption that both children and their parents can't make good decisions and that the state must instead force the right decisions on them. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | elmomle 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Yet we have laws around child endangerment. I'm a big supporter of parental sovereignty, but I also acknowledge that if society operates the way it does, I can't immediately think of a good reason why "mental health endangerment" (which social media for kids very much is) wouldn't be included in the broader scope of endangerment. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | techblueberry 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
Creativity requires limitations. > More fundamentally, laws like this are based on the fundamental assumption that both children and their parents can't make good decisions and that the state must instead force the right decisions on them. Also yeah? Sure? You may not like that that’s the conclusion. Why does everyone say this like it’s some kind of gotcha? Children are incapable biologically of making good decisions. But yes, I cannot make these decisions of myself and want the state to step in. It’s way too big a surface area. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||