Hacker News Reader

Comment by JasonADrury | Hacker News Reader

Voters overrule countless well-being experts to keep alcohol available everywhere.

This seems like entirely normal human behavior at every level of society, no? Of course asking Zuckerberg is a bit like asking a bartender, but we know very well that it's not only bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales.

It is strange to condemn Zuckerberg for doing this unless you're also willing to implement the all the other (vastly more important) advice from wellbeing experts that we as a society have pretty decisively rejected.

View on HN

So you're saying we should implement age restrictions until the person is deemed mature enough to understand what the implications of their decisions are?

Sure, why not? I don't use Instagram and I don't give a shit. Filters provide me absolutely zero joy.

I'm only pointing out that the headline is describing perfectly normal human behavior.

> Voters overrule countless well-being experts to keep alcohol available everywhere.

Not completely true. Some states in India have complete bans on alcohol, and even some parts of the US prohibit its sale.

> bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales

I think you'll find quite a few bartenders would be pro stopping alcohol sales. Something about having to deal with the damage alcohol causes on a daily basis...

It's the people really profiting from alcohol (and alcohol addiction) you want to keep your eye on (i.e. the owners and investors in the bars/breweries/distileries/etc)

Not all bartenders would serve alcohol to anyone at at all times. But Z would, I'm sure.

Discussing whether or not Zuckerberg would do that seems like a better fit for some reddit gossip board than HN.

Seems like a great analogy to me..

Do you know Zuckerberg well enough to be able to engage in an interesting conversation about his hypothetical behavior if he was a bartender?

Do you know Zuckerberg well enough to be able to engage in an interesting conversation about whether or not he would continue to grant a specific person access to filters, knowing that they're harming that specific person?

I guess not. Speculating about it seems pointless at best.

Eh? It seems like a reasonable metaphor. Facebook has constantly avoided any sort of harm reduction where it might interfere with profits.

Alcohol is a cultural universal where it is not outlawed and has been for thousands of years. It has the benefit of precedent social media does not have and it’s banned for children. Terrible point.

Social media has become a cultural universal.

Social media offers many more benefits than alcohol does, and it could certainly be banned for children. Alcohol is almost certainly less beneficial and more harmful to its users than social media.

You are correct that alcohol has been around for a while, but that hardly explains why it should be treated differently.

It’s a great point really. They’re both unhealthy products used by large portion of the human population. We treat one with moderation and regulate it heavily. The other we treat with utter gluttony and have not formed any social norms regarding restrictions, moderation, and things that would lessen the addiction and impacts to wellness it causes.

They’re both unhealthy products and I feel they deserve to be just that. Allow social media to be what it wants. But also approach it with moderation and regulation around access. The wellness experts shouldn’t be dictating what social media is, they should be promoting more healthy ways regarding how it’s used. It’s an uphill battle for a reason though, we like it too much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com