• Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Honestly, this is the question people should be asking in response. I totally get the gut reaction against censorship, but I don’t think anyone would agree that Facebook, Xitter, etm. are innocent, neutral parties in all of this.

      Part of the issue (as the article points out) is that those companies have been allowed to essentially craft people’s internal narrative, often amplifying our worst impulses and inclinations—all in service of making the black line go up for investors.

      So is banning social media for teens the correct path forward? Maybe in the short term, but until we direct the governance to the companies creating the problems in the first place, we’re almost certainly going to have this conversation again in the future.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Then it won’t exactly be the first, “Teens are [doing thing]! It’s horrible and we have to stop them!” overblown moral panic in the past century. (It’ll suck for some teens who don’t fit in with the people they’re required to associate with in meatspace, but that’s another thing that’s always been true.)

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Except social media is a bane for kids, even moreso than for adults.

      It’s a shit show.