7/15/2026 at 8:09:50 AM
"Society without functional families reports choking hazard reduced after nation-wide beeps enacted to remind population to inhale""Society without functional people reports eye strain reduced ever since population discouraged about reading"
Unbelievable.
by mdp2021
7/15/2026 at 10:05:08 AM
You think people only breathe because their "functional families" remind them of it?Strange, shallow hyperbole.
Social media is causing widespread mental health crises, has killed democratic discourse and regarding the "functional families", I doubt it being helpful there either.
I respect being against censorship and/or surveillance, but portraying Social Media bans for children as plainly stupid in this way is deeply unwarranted IMO.
Free speech does not depend on Meta, and other platforms that intransparently and intentionally promote personalized manipulation of public opinion and monetization of suffering.
Using social media (or better, offering it) is not necessarily a free-speech issue.
In my opinion, free speech is not hindered by banning minors from using social media platforms / banning platforms from monetizing their lives.
by moritzwarhier
7/15/2026 at 1:08:01 PM
> You think people only breathe because their "functional families" remind them of it?No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managed.
> free-speech
Where would that be in topic.
> widespread mental health crises
And where is the assessment of the root causes. If shoes are bad and people's reaction is to ban walking, than we whole issue is in the people, right? In fact,
> intentionally promote personalized manipulation of public opinion
This is so close to that "episode" somewhere in the USA when the police gave trouble to a father and mother for having let the kid out of home for a walk "in a town where there is crime in the streets".
> Social Media bans for children as plainly stupid
Much, much worse than stupid. The uk has banned access to YouTube to kids (and the population did not seem to have started a loud choir of "Moron" to the administration), which is low beyond proportions. It is history books level unbelievable. It is incredible that it is not on everybody's mouth - and this also reveals that infrahumanity is due. Do see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48906979
> has killed democratic discourse
That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.
by mdp2021
7/15/2026 at 2:07:39 PM
> No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managedI still don't understand what you wanted to say with the analogy.
That people falling prey to social media in a manner similar to addiction would be comparable to not being able to control bodily functions?
If you wanted to say that broken families and a bad upbringing nurture all kinds of problems like this, and a good upbringing can help prevent them, I'd agree.
That doesn't mean there isn't a lot if grey area though. But mh, it seems that I just don't understand your point.
Also, I found using breathing as an example particularly strange, since it's an involuntary reflex and not learned in a family? Correct me there if this isn't true.
> That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.
Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media.
I'm not even sure if I think such a law helps anyone, I just understand neither fear nor outrage over it.
In my view, it has no effect at worst, or positive effects in the best case.
Re: free speech, I brought that up because I wanted to understand where you are coming from with your comment and viewing such a law as a form of censorship was my best guess.
by moritzwarhier