Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

> There really seems to be no reason whatsoever these protections shouldn't be extended to people over 18.

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.

View on HN

I think in the past, social media was seen as a subset of tech, we were naturally allies, and gave them a lot of good faith.

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.

Yes and that's what I want. A law that allows adults to choose whether to allow algorithmic feeds or turn them off. Companies should be legally required to give you that off switch.

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.

> 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.

> The reason is that we let adults choose what to consume

when you are an addict you dont have much of a choice

> The reason is that we let adults choose what to consume.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com