Part of the problem is sidestepping around the issue of parental accountability. Certain parties see giving the government increased power into the home, as their opportunity for more control over their populations and any dissent in general. Saying it's "for the kids" is a smoke screen for what they are actually trying to do. The laws they often promote, will do little to solve the actual problem, but will do a lot for them to increase censorship and funnel more money into their pockets.
Bans done wrong can also make the thing being banned even more appealing, increasing harm. Telling teenagers they can’t do something is always in that realm of calling out forbidden fruit.
Not a ban. A restriction. Which does have evidence of reducing use.
> There is no way to draw a boundary around any behavior other than theft without comparing outcomes to a subjectively valuable ideal
Isn’t this more to do with a society’s viewpoint on moral subjectivity vs. objectivity? And not the act itself?
> It's a costly systemic virus we wield out of desperation
Desperation or practicality? There is always going to be a downside to any prohibitive law put into effect. But should there be no prohibitive laws to curb self harm in a society? To reflect the values of that society? That seems extremely idealistic.
> Social media's most fundamental problem is… it creates an environment that allows people to sidestep existing restrictions
I think it’s pretty well understood that this is not social media’s most fundamental problem. I don’t think sidestepping porn guardrails (for instance) is anywhere near as damaging as ever-radicalizing echo chambers or exposure to ideas that accelerate depression and anxiety and contribute to low self worth and self harm.
I’m sorry but this whole post just comes off as overly idealistic and completely missing the point of how harmful social media is to everyone (but especially children). I actually sympathize with the war on drugs creating more issues around drug use, but I don’t think we should then conclude that all restrictions are bad and cause more harm.
First, thank you for responding to my points. I've read every reply in this thread and I think you're the first.
Criminalization is criminalization. If you don't like word "ban", please feel free to substitute "restriction", "regulation", "guardrails", or any other euphemism. A liquor restriction is drug prohibition even if you're still allowed to trade beer.
Yes, prohibition is fundamentally a conflict about state subjectivity. This is a critically under-developed aspect of virtually all democratic constitutions. That's not weird; those were developed before modern philosophy, and industry has in no small way distracted us from the development and implementation of philosophy. Industry has simultaneously provided a vector for a vast host of terrifying emerging behaviors. One of my central concerns is that prohibition is a vicious pattern that reemerges in a wide variety of domains. That's a key component of its entrenchment: we're usually too concerned with the symptom—perceived harmful behavior—to address the disease: moralization of the state and therefore the application of force.
Regarding pragmatism, let's remember that most prohibitive systems begin very reasonably: small, well-intentioned limits being enforced uniformly with apparent marginal success. The fundamental problem is that it's never as effective as everyone wants to believe (but few dare to promise) it will be. In combination with the precedent created by the first generation, this is a strong incentive for further prohibition. The topic at hand is a great example. I don't want to make doomsayer predictions but there's no way Norway is finished increasing the severity and complexity of their social media restrictions.
Prohibited behaviors are eventually driven underground, breaking the state's ability to measure them or track their mutation. When they reemerge, they are more concentrated. In The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton argues that crystal meth, crack cocaine, and the ever-expanding list of synthetic opioids with microscopic lethal doses are all the direct product of prohibition, especially law enforcement "crackdown".
You think Facebook was bad? Have you seen what people get up to on the image boards of the disenfranchised? Same concept. Norway's youth will flock to them. The state will crack down. I don't want to speculate about what will happen next.
There's much more to say on pragmatism and the quantifiable costs of increasing legal complexity and eroding the prosecutor's obligation to prove criminal intent. If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend The Overcriminalization of Social and Economic Conduct by Paul Rosenzweig.
Finally, you mentioned the specific perceived harms associated with social media. As I said, I think this is a narrow view. I don't want to discuss those any more than I want to discuss the harms of eating Tide Pods (Big Bleach Kills Kids! Parents Outraged! Twitch.TV Does Damage Control!) but I would like to point out that echo chambers and depression and anxiety are issues that exist independently of social media. When I say that the fundamental problem is an environment, I mean technology creates autonomous microcosms for which our existing defenses against the horrors of human existence are not adapted. In my view, the least wasteful solution is to develop the tools and skills required to navigate these microcosms.
I wouldn't ban prohibition, by the way. That would be paradoxical. I would focus on enhancing the democratic ability to dismantle legislation that didn't work according to the professed standards of its own advocates. It's funny being called an idealist for railing against moralization. I see how that perspective works, but please believe that my concerns are justice and viability.
And as an adult, you know how to cope with dopamine and its deficits. As a young teenager you stop reaching for your parents and start reaching for your peers to help you with your problems (including neurochemicals). But if you reach for distraction and gambling and drugs instead, you fill these gaps with things that alienate you from the rest of the world.
Is there any evidence that that social media causes higher levels of dopamine release than say, music? Exercise? Eating? Regular old socialization? Games? Sun exposure?
I'm highly skeptical here, largely due to all the other moral panics based on questionable science that have come before claiming everything from phones (as in landlines) to video games were as addictive as crack.
They aren't prohibiting it, they are putting an age limit on it in the same way we do all the other things you listed. Kids are not developed enough to self-regulate,
I have watched my kid eat tons of sugar then feel terrible a few hours later and be totally unable to connect the dots between the behavior and the outcome. Their brains are not developed enough to practice self-control with highly addictive things.
This is not an outright ban, but a sensible regulation. Kids can stil use simple messaging apps, but have to wait to get their first fix of attention grabing, personalized ad feeds.
What a bunch of nonsense. China was full of opium addicts when their markets were flooded with it. Singapore had a massive number of opium addicts less than 60 years ago. Enforcement has bought that to a negligible number. The only reason the US is dealing with a resurgence in the heroin epidemic is because we let the Sacklers push their pills on the populace through doctors. Even marijuana use was in the single digits for habitual usage before it was legalized in a lot of states, now we’re looking at between 15-25% of the populace being habitual users in some states. Social media is an evil and I commend Norway on setting the age limit at 15 but I think it should go further and make it 18. Additionally, you shouldn’t be able to get/use/buy a smartphone until you’re 16.
I completely agree with you, but I believe that social media has a positive impact on certain aspects of society and on some individuals, even more so than sex, drugs, gambling, and obscenity.
For example, a user with social anxiety can find a refuge where they can discuss and socialize on social media, sometimes by talking about specific topics and joining marginalized communities. In fact, speaking of marginalized communities, social media would have greatly helped homosexuals in the 1970s to meet people their age who were also gay, something that was very difficult at the time.
However, this very clearly positive aspect of social media can also backfire on people who fall into far-right conspiracy rabbit holes. This creates communities that are no longer so marginal, like incels or people who believe that the election was rigged to make Donald Trump lose. Incels are particularly young people who experience a societal problem (loneliness, emotional deprivation, social issues, leading to involuntary celibacy and what they perceive as sexual frustration) and are influenced to fight against the wrong issue (women instead of capitalism and patriarchy).
For me, if these harmful communities become so popular, it's primarily the fault of capitalism: social media platforms are all managed by private companies, whose main goal is profit. Elon Musk changed Twitter's algorithm to favor confrontation, to increase user engagement. This boosts the time spent on Twitter, allowing for more ad exposure, but I believe it also harms mental health and encourages harassment (especially against the LGBT community).
That's why I see no other solution than decentralized, free, and open-source alternatives, as you mentioned.
“We also have strong evidence to say that SIFs not only save the lives of people who inject drugs, but also improve their lives,” George Dertadian, a senior lecturer of criminology at the UNSW https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/safe-injecting-facili...
stouset|1 year ago
This is pointlessly reductive. Bans don’t have to be 100% effective to reduce harm.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
baranul|1 year ago
seanmcdirmid|1 year ago
vhiremath4|1 year ago
Not a ban. A restriction. Which does have evidence of reducing use.
> There is no way to draw a boundary around any behavior other than theft without comparing outcomes to a subjectively valuable ideal
Isn’t this more to do with a society’s viewpoint on moral subjectivity vs. objectivity? And not the act itself?
> It's a costly systemic virus we wield out of desperation
Desperation or practicality? There is always going to be a downside to any prohibitive law put into effect. But should there be no prohibitive laws to curb self harm in a society? To reflect the values of that society? That seems extremely idealistic.
> Social media's most fundamental problem is… it creates an environment that allows people to sidestep existing restrictions
I think it’s pretty well understood that this is not social media’s most fundamental problem. I don’t think sidestepping porn guardrails (for instance) is anywhere near as damaging as ever-radicalizing echo chambers or exposure to ideas that accelerate depression and anxiety and contribute to low self worth and self harm.
I’m sorry but this whole post just comes off as overly idealistic and completely missing the point of how harmful social media is to everyone (but especially children). I actually sympathize with the war on drugs creating more issues around drug use, but I don’t think we should then conclude that all restrictions are bad and cause more harm.
vintnes|1 year ago
Criminalization is criminalization. If you don't like word "ban", please feel free to substitute "restriction", "regulation", "guardrails", or any other euphemism. A liquor restriction is drug prohibition even if you're still allowed to trade beer.
Yes, prohibition is fundamentally a conflict about state subjectivity. This is a critically under-developed aspect of virtually all democratic constitutions. That's not weird; those were developed before modern philosophy, and industry has in no small way distracted us from the development and implementation of philosophy. Industry has simultaneously provided a vector for a vast host of terrifying emerging behaviors. One of my central concerns is that prohibition is a vicious pattern that reemerges in a wide variety of domains. That's a key component of its entrenchment: we're usually too concerned with the symptom—perceived harmful behavior—to address the disease: moralization of the state and therefore the application of force.
Regarding pragmatism, let's remember that most prohibitive systems begin very reasonably: small, well-intentioned limits being enforced uniformly with apparent marginal success. The fundamental problem is that it's never as effective as everyone wants to believe (but few dare to promise) it will be. In combination with the precedent created by the first generation, this is a strong incentive for further prohibition. The topic at hand is a great example. I don't want to make doomsayer predictions but there's no way Norway is finished increasing the severity and complexity of their social media restrictions.
Prohibited behaviors are eventually driven underground, breaking the state's ability to measure them or track their mutation. When they reemerge, they are more concentrated. In The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton argues that crystal meth, crack cocaine, and the ever-expanding list of synthetic opioids with microscopic lethal doses are all the direct product of prohibition, especially law enforcement "crackdown".
You think Facebook was bad? Have you seen what people get up to on the image boards of the disenfranchised? Same concept. Norway's youth will flock to them. The state will crack down. I don't want to speculate about what will happen next.
There's much more to say on pragmatism and the quantifiable costs of increasing legal complexity and eroding the prosecutor's obligation to prove criminal intent. If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend The Overcriminalization of Social and Economic Conduct by Paul Rosenzweig.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-over-c...
Finally, you mentioned the specific perceived harms associated with social media. As I said, I think this is a narrow view. I don't want to discuss those any more than I want to discuss the harms of eating Tide Pods (Big Bleach Kills Kids! Parents Outraged! Twitch.TV Does Damage Control!) but I would like to point out that echo chambers and depression and anxiety are issues that exist independently of social media. When I say that the fundamental problem is an environment, I mean technology creates autonomous microcosms for which our existing defenses against the horrors of human existence are not adapted. In my view, the least wasteful solution is to develop the tools and skills required to navigate these microcosms.
I wouldn't ban prohibition, by the way. That would be paradoxical. I would focus on enhancing the democratic ability to dismantle legislation that didn't work according to the professed standards of its own advocates. It's funny being called an idealist for railing against moralization. I see how that perspective works, but please believe that my concerns are justice and viability.
hinkley|1 year ago
And as an adult, you know how to cope with dopamine and its deficits. As a young teenager you stop reaching for your parents and start reaching for your peers to help you with your problems (including neurochemicals). But if you reach for distraction and gambling and drugs instead, you fill these gaps with things that alienate you from the rest of the world.
jp_nc|1 year ago
Aloisius|1 year ago
I'm highly skeptical here, largely due to all the other moral panics based on questionable science that have come before claiming everything from phones (as in landlines) to video games were as addictive as crack.
cchi_co|1 year ago
[deleted]
ericmcer|1 year ago
I have watched my kid eat tons of sugar then feel terrible a few hours later and be totally unable to connect the dots between the behavior and the outcome. Their brains are not developed enough to practice self-control with highly addictive things.
rsolva|1 year ago
dyauspitr|1 year ago
xzjis|1 year ago
For example, a user with social anxiety can find a refuge where they can discuss and socialize on social media, sometimes by talking about specific topics and joining marginalized communities. In fact, speaking of marginalized communities, social media would have greatly helped homosexuals in the 1970s to meet people their age who were also gay, something that was very difficult at the time.
However, this very clearly positive aspect of social media can also backfire on people who fall into far-right conspiracy rabbit holes. This creates communities that are no longer so marginal, like incels or people who believe that the election was rigged to make Donald Trump lose. Incels are particularly young people who experience a societal problem (loneliness, emotional deprivation, social issues, leading to involuntary celibacy and what they perceive as sexual frustration) and are influenced to fight against the wrong issue (women instead of capitalism and patriarchy).
For me, if these harmful communities become so popular, it's primarily the fault of capitalism: social media platforms are all managed by private companies, whose main goal is profit. Elon Musk changed Twitter's algorithm to favor confrontation, to increase user engagement. This boosts the time spent on Twitter, allowing for more ad exposure, but I believe it also harms mental health and encourages harassment (especially against the LGBT community).
That's why I see no other solution than decentralized, free, and open-source alternatives, as you mentioned.
cchi_co|1 year ago
[deleted]
tyleo|1 year ago
getwiththeprog|1 year ago
“Without this place I would be dead. Simply, the MSIC saves lives.” Uniting MSIC client https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s...
“We also have strong evidence to say that SIFs not only save the lives of people who inject drugs, but also improve their lives,” George Dertadian, a senior lecturer of criminology at the UNSW https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/safe-injecting-facili...