It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
But, you know, prescription medicine dependence, its different, right? Right. Its gotta be different. And the reason its different is because... fewer people use social media? No. Fewer people suffer from mental health issues? Definitely not. Fewer people have overtly negative outcomes, including death, from mental health issues? Nope.
So, actually, the only reason its different is: We've fully studied and have a mature grasp of the personal and social impact of some chemical dependencies. The same can not be said of mental health, and all the evidence you need for this immaturity can be found in comments like some in this thread, or those from Zuckerberg.
The cigarette companies are commissioning studies saying smoking is healthy, and people still downplay the victims. If you've ever wondered how anyone can think smoking is healthy; in 10 years, some may look back to the '10s and wonder the same thing about social media. How could anyone have worked for Facebook, defended them, saying they've done more good than bad?
citation? or source? i'm asking since it's the first time i'm seeing this idea.
Anyone on the 2nd side should do a deep dive on buying "clean" delta 8 THC.
That's called cognitive dissonance. Pharmaceuticals already have the shit regulated out of them and it obviously doesn't work.
Definitely on the same page; not a strict mathematical equivalence.
I think it is a terrible place where government does not have a responsibility, as the union of the people, to help inform citizens of the dangers of addictive products and to regulate unethical behavior of the sellers of such products.
Your perspective completely ignores the intentionally addictive design of the products, and the network effects of having everyone and every business you know also using it.
What you're advocating is more like suggesting we might also consider putting labels on cheese about the risk of eating too much saturated fat, or heck, a warning on most green vegetables for people taking Coumadin and other blood thinners.
The warning labels anyway are not placed on these things you mention on the basis of addictive qualities.
If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s.
So I disagree on your distinction in the first line.
I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese.
Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary.
TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it.
As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary.
And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.
The former could be easily abused to create a certain narrative.
It's a good market opportunity actually. Too bad NextDoor is basically known as "racist people alerting their neighbors that a black person is out walking their dog" or some nonsense.
I have to constantly explain to people why I don't use those, and they still keep trying to convince me that I should.
Is it so much to ask for honesty from a company these days?
I'm not sure when it switched but it's seems to be more and more acceptable to force people into acting a certain way. It's really anti-american and anti-progressive imo.
A government controlled social media ripe for propaganda seems far more terrifying to me than what's currently on facebook.
The other problem is informed consent. Kids don't have the mental defences to avoid the dopamine trap. Whether parents allow the kids is beside the point. A parent can allow a kid to have sex but it's still illegal because the kid isn't capable of consenting.
At first I thought that was a bit too facile, they have nothing to do with each other, but ... is that true? Other people using Facebook to spread hate and misinformation (including vaccine misinformation) does affect me. They affect who gets elected (or appointed) and what policies get enacted. We're already seeing real tangible effects at the state level, and with the 2022 elections we might see more at the federal level. (That's just the US. The same is absolutely true elsewhere, but it's harder for me to come up with examples that are both accurate and familiar to most readers.) In the sense that they both affect public health - political/economic/social in one case, physical in another - hate/misinformation and vaccine refusal are similar. And for the same reasons, "if you don't like..." is an unhelpful response.
Getting pretty tired of having the same argument with people who are smart enough to figure this out on their own.
Getting pretty tired of the hypocritical and illogical dissonance displayed from people who should be smart enough to think the ENTIRE picture through on their own.
If we could dramatically reduce the negative impacts of obesity with a shot you better believe I’d want that mandated too.
Why don't you go ahead and look up the top 10 causes of death worldwide and then let me know how many of those are partially or directly related to obesity.
The entire point of my comment is people with your stance are focusing on the un-vaccinated and turning them into some evil boogie-man that needs to be eradicated when it's completely silly if you zoom out and look at the big picture.
THEY AREN'T AFFECTING YOU. Please stop the hypocrisy. I'm so tired of it.
You're negating your own point. Full vaccination is not achievable just stop with this silly pointless rhetoric.
>Travel restrictions.
The un-vaccinated aren't restricting your travel. You've got a bit of stockholm syndrome going on.
That's called the fallacy of the excluded middle (sub-species "argument by demanding impossible perfection") and it doesn't negate my own point at all. No, 100% elimination isn't possible, but every reduction helps and literally saves lives.
> The un-vaccinated aren't restricting your travel.
Simply untrue. There are still countries that won't let me in because I'm from a country with too-high case levels. There are more that I wouldn't go to because I don't want to be in a small confined space for hours on end with people whose oppositional defiant disorder has made them dangerous. I would have liked to visit family in New Zealand this year (from the US). At one time that might have been possible, but no, because of people who are too selfish and/or arrogant to do what's obviously right for public health.
It entirely negates your point since it's predicated on the the fact that un-vaccinated will supposedly continue eating up hospital resources. There is no future where this will stop until the disease has run its course. Therefore, your point is moot. Even more so because you have no objective number of vaccinations or hospital cases that MUST be met.
>Simply untrue. There are still countries that won't let me in because I'm from a country with too-high case levels.
You really seem to have an issue grasping that those restrictions are coming from the governments of those countries. They are not coming from un-vaccinated people. What's happening is that you've let them create a boogie-man and brainwash you into placing the blame away from the people who are causing your issues. This is how fascism and authoritarianism spreads. I'm sure you can think of a few times in history where certain leaders singled out specific groups for blame and how that worked out.
>There are more that I wouldn't go to because I don't want to be in a small confined space for hours
That's on you. No one else has a responsibility to protect you. If you don't trust science or the vaccination then it sounds like you have some major health anxiety that needs to be dealt with.
If you are vaccinated and you're going into a country like NZ there is ZERO logic in saying you cannot enter due to your country of origin having a higher case load. This absolute stupidity. Place the blame where it lies. NZ is full of anti-science morons, it has nothing to do with un-vaccinated people in the US.
Give me hard objective numbers that must be met for all restrictions/lockdowns to be dropped please. I'll save you some time. THEY DON'T EXIST. This means they will continue to string you along blaming all of their authoritarian tactics on specific group of people that aren't actually doing anything to you.
Let me guess... you also blamed the kid who talked too much in class when the teacher took your pizza party away? It wasn't the kid who took that from you.
No, it's predicated on the fact that they will continue allowing more of the virus to circulate and infect others (and also incubate variants). Don't pretend to mind-read. It's annoying and unpersuasive.
> those restrictions are coming from the governments of those countries
...which is perfectly valid and even their duty unless we assume that the virus is harmless. I'm clearly not the one who has trouble considering more than one possibility.
> it sounds like you have some major health anxiety > you also blamed
Ad hominem. We're done.
Cognitive dissonance. You admitted the vaccinations don't stop infections. Therefore, variants will continue on whether people are vaccinated or not. There's quite a bit of irony in you prattling on about the big bad un-vaccinated while simultaneously not believing the vaccine provides you enough protection to go out and be safe.
>Ad hominem. We're done.
No it's an objective observation based on your comments about being terrified of other people infecting you with a disease that has a lower likely hood of killing or harming you in any major way than driving in your car daily (on top of many other more deadly daily activities). I actually think you need to talk with someone about your issues. I'm not attacking you for it, but it's obvious your stance isn't based in reality.
Life is full of risk. COVID isn't an issue that ought to be worrying you at all if you've vaccinated yourself.