Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

Yes because the War on Drugs has worked wonders. Any law that is passed to restrict people from doing something that only harms themselves ends up being applied unevenly and usually only affects the poor/minorities.

See “the War on Drugs”

View on HN

Heavy taxes, plain packaging and other measures helped halve tobacco consumption over some 16 years in Australia. I have no issue with poor people having better mental and lung health.

Win?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/15/regul...

> Regular cannabis use has become more accepted than smoking tobacco, the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) has found.

I'd take that with a grain of salt. If cannabis was allowed to be smoked in the open, subjecting others to the smoke, I can imagine people would be not as accepting.

Prevalence of for monthly or more often weed consumption is still lower than prevalence of daily tobacco smoking, so yes I'd still call it a win.

These are the trends in the US

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/28/politics/marijuana-tobacco-ci...

What are you going to do, grow a social media network with hydroponics in your closet? Drug/alcohol prohibition doesn't work because production is inherently decentralized. Other forms of prohibition do frequently work. Conflating any form of prohibition with drug/alcohol prohibition specifically is a common libertarian trick, one they trick themselves with. What about prohibition of asbestos? That seems to be working pretty well, as far as I'm aware there's no black market for kitchen mittens stuffed with asbestos. Working in a factory that made such mittens killed one of my grandfathers, but that doesn't happen anymore. Prohibitions frequently work, the cases where they don't are the unusual exception.

Use a VPN and download the british / european version of the app? US legislation will probably not be enforced in the rest of the world, in the case of TikTok.

Using a VPN is a HUGE barrier for the general public, esp. considering that TikToks biggest selling point is quick and easy tailored videos. Having to pay for a VPN and activating it just to watch a few TikToks means barely any non-tech people use it. Ergo, the network effect dies down dramatically.

The general public, sure, but young adults and teenagers? Aren't they already getting sponsors for e.g. NordVPN pushed down their throats regularly?

"This video is sponsored by NordVPN! NordVPN can help you stay secure and get back access to the social media content you love - when you want, how long you want. Check out the link in the description to get 10% off using code INFLUENCERNAME" doesn't seem very outlandish, IMO.

Those VPNs are also more or less fire and forget - download the app from the app store, pay, accept the OS modal, done.

I agree that fewer people will use those apps after such regulation, but I also think that a very substantial part of the (young) userbase will do their best to circumvent the regulations, because they like social media and TikTok very much. Not the best comparison, I know, but: When Epic Games only provided the game Fortnite as a direct APK download for Android, it also didn't stop kids and young adults from downloading it en masse, even though most probably never sideloaded an app before.

Unless you plan on sideloading it, the two major app-stores are both controlled by American companies. Either way, whether you're sideloading or using a VPN, requiring users to jump through such hoops will easily kill the mainstream use of any social media company.

> Conflating any form of prohibition with drug/alcohol prohibition specifically is a common libertarian trick

The parent poster

>> It's about time we made some social network legislation akin to tobacco/gambling restrictions.

But more to the point, how are you going to “ban” social media?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com