Three in five Americans favor stronger oversight of social media companies | Hacker News Reader

Three in five Americans favor stronger oversight of social media companies

reuters.com

27 pointsjack011110 comments

Opposition refuses to develop better arguments. I don't mean more correct arguments or even having a better position. I mean 'parents need to parent' is actively harming their argument and they don't seem to comprehend it. It doesn't matter how true or false it is. It's rhetorical empty and diminishes the point being made.

One of the worst things that you can do politically is tell people that their problems aren't real.

'parents need to parent' is true, but it's not enough to just say that. We should all be responsible for and will benefit from a mentally healthy younger generation.

Who defines "mentally healthy"?

There will be enormous pressure to misuse any kind of oversight system to shape public opinion.

It shouldn't be too difficult. Who decides what a kid should learn in the third grade? There are common standards.

It's extremely difficult, and as I said it will be easily abused by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population.

One person's definition of harm is completely different than another person's.

>The argument that words can harm has also been used to justify institutional efforts to prohibit certain language. In 2022, the Stanford University IT department launched a program entitled the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” which proposed removing from Stanford's websites a set of words considered to be biased or discriminatory, including “blind review,” “handicap parking,” “OCD,” “victim,” “immigrant,” and “American”

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692...

What happens when we get an administration that decides a platform which allows "discriminatory" language should be punished via this new "oversight" mechanism?

> Three in five Americans favor stronger oversight

> by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population.

With all due respect, the consent has already been manufactured. We already enforce rules with far less public support.

The most simple explanation is that you and the public don't share the same political goals and you're in the minority. That doesn't mean that they're right and you're wrong. It means that the tension that you're attempting to illustrate doesn't broadly exist.

This has been a raucous success for the "think of the children" crowd, proving that the technique is still, despite all the times its been abused in the past, a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want.

Reality check: we already know those companies were actively and knowingly harming children and adults. We know they have basically infinite resources at their disposal unlike parents who are expected to somehow counteract it by miracle.

Expectations on parents are historically sky high while there is zero accountability and responsibility placed on rich companies.

When your moral outrage is used, for the 9 billionth time, to add more flock cameras and spy on you more, and the "rich companies" become even richer, will you or anyone else learn? Polymarket says no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com