I wonder how sites will handle content discovery that doesn't run afoul of the law. Like completely seriously Discover Weekly on Spotify sounds like it will have to be age gated since Spotify is technically a social network.
I wonder how sites will handle content discovery that doesn't run afoul of the law. Like completely seriously Discover Weekly on Spotify sounds like it will have to be age gated since Spotify is technically a social network.
The reason is that we let adults choose what to consume.
If you go down the path of banning social media feeds because they might be addictive, prepare for the floodgates of banning alcohol, porn, cigarettes, and more. Some people who don't consume any of those things will gleefully cheer this idea on, but I assure you there are people out there who would gladly ride this wave to start banning things you actually like, too.
Does anyone else find it weird to see so many comments on sites like Hacker News that are in favor of governments regulating what adults can consume? Years ago sites like HN and Slashdot were universally in agreement about internet freedoms, but now it's common to see people inviting government control of the internet for adults. I don't get it.
Sockpuppets and useful idiots in equal measure.
when you are an addict you dont have much of a choice
More recently people have come around to the idea that these are basically ad companies except much more intrusive and creepy.
Facebook is really quite bad, not in a “oh wow, annoying site full of idiots” way, but in a “incredibly powerful tool for grabbing people’s attention run by a company so negligent that they let it be used to promote ethnic cleansing.”
It also seems pretty addictive and, I haven’t really looked into it, but it sure seems like kids are getting worse and worse at focusing. I’m not sure if it should be banned entirely, but we could hit it with sin taxes.
Do we let adults choose to consume hard drugs?
Do we let adults choose whether they want to wear seatbelts?
No, because adults are stupid too.
> If you go down the path of banning social media feeds because they might be addictive, prepare for the floodgates of banning alcohol, porn, cigarettes, and more.
This does not align with what is happening in reality. Banning addictive things is nothing new. We've banned hard drugs for ages. It did not result in an unstoppable wave of bans.
> Does anyone else find it weird to see so many comments on sites like Hacker News that are in favor of governments regulating what adults can consume? Years ago sites like HN and Slashdot were universally in agreement about internet freedoms, but now it's common to see people inviting government control of the internet for adults. I don't get it.
At least to me internet freedoms are largely about maintaining the freedoms we've already set in the offline world. Spying on people's activity in their home is illegal. Spying on people's activity on their home systems (e.g. their tablet or PC) should be illegal, too. It's about maintaining the rights we already know. It's not about creating new rights, which allow for anything and everything.
This is how we do all laws, good lord. Banned for under-18s without parental consent, a choice for adults. Why you chose to read the take you did from my comment is beyond me.
Also lol at "you're an adult" like that's how addiction works. Just get more willpower bro. There's a reason you have the option to ban yourself from casinos and the option to do so is mandated by law.
Personal problems do not get social solutions
That doesn't sound like a ban, that sounds like consumer choice.
Gambling, alcohol abuse, drug addiction all get social solutions. This law is perfectly consistent how we deal with all other forms of addiction.