Are you sure it's just kids?

In dealing with the ills of social media, you do what you do with every other negative externality - you tax it. At least the parts of it you don't like.

Designing privacy, freedom, and liberty destroying mechanisms is not the way.

Big social wants these regulations to pass so that they can get better identity tracking for ads targeting. To them it doesn't matter if the tech ushers in 1984. It makes them more money.

▲

bloqs 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure I get your arguement here

Are you saying that we should let children smoke and just tax it because its better for their liberty and freedoms?

Or are you saying we should just tax social media for adults but banning it for kids is ok

	▲	anonzzzies 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We do that here; heavy tax sigarettes (and booze): both dropped like a lead balloon. So yes, tax it for everyone. Kids cannot pay for sigarettes and most adults don't want to (most vapers I know do it because it costs far less; that should be taxed more too imho). If browsing insta/tiktok costs an euro per hour, let's see how many still do it; I'd say they go bankrupt in a few months. Apparently it was never that interesting.

▲

Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's definitely not just kids. Social media is a lot like meth, we should at a bare minimum stop giving it to kids as soon as possible. And then come to realise it's bad for everyone and should be wound back.

	▲	Paracompact 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Their argument would be, "If meth is a negative externality, we should just tax it instead of banning it in stores for kids to buy." Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something.