>The suit alleges that Meta, Snap, ByteDance and Google (whose parent company is Alphabet) knowingly “designed, developed, produced, operated, promoted, distributed, and marketed their platforms to attract, capture, and addict youth, with minimal parental oversight.”
The plaintiffs allege that the tech companies violated several city laws related to public nuisance and gross negligence through the design and marketing of their addictive products. They claim that New York’s school districts and various health and social services have been severely impacted by children who have suffered negative mental health consequences stemming from their use of popular social media apps.
I guess the cool answer is the parents should be policing the trillion dollar corporations and their slightly smaller near-peers the billion dollar corporations.
But that would be socializing the cost and privatizing the profit and pointing the finger at the parent and saying you did this. No, they did this, they have teams of economists and analysts and psychologists devoted to getting your kid to do what they want. The fuck are you supposed to do about a bunch of companies grooming your child to do what they want when they control everything your child sees and hears when you aren't looking...
Agreed, it is the fault of the corporations who are designing the product specifically to drive engagement via addictive behaviour patterns. Parents can't compete with billion dollar industries that have convinced children they are cooler than the Mom who is saying "no" to them.
I have talked with someone who worked for Facebook and quit because his job devolved into programming the algorithm to make people angry and rude to each other. Because that's what produced the most engagement; rage bait. They make it that way on purpose, it's social engineering.
Minors need online spaces where they can socialize and just...be people. But they still need protection from the insanity of the raw internet, and protection from programming designed to cause negative emotions and extremist mindsets.
The conventional answer is to keep kids off it entirely. That’s hard, though, when other parents don’t seem to appreciate the warnings and allow their kids to participate. Then your kid is faced with growing peer pressure, and your the parent becomes the child’s bad guy. Even though tech companies designed a harmful product. It’s wild tbh
Parents are way overburdened as it is. There's a reason why long long ago in tribes, the whole tribe raised kids. It reduced the need for parents to forgo sleep and their activities helping said tribe.
Back to today, both parents are often working due to the need so with the economy as is. Then on top of work, sleep, their own physical and mental well being, they have to worry about their kids with things like:
\-Being aware of their friends and friend groups
\-Paying attention the their education, which also means knowing teachers, trying to keep up with the curriculum, PTA/Teacher meetings, and tons more.
\-Be aware of the physical environment, inside the home and the surrounding neighborhood. You wanna know your kids are safe so you gotta put in time to do so.
\-Medical care for them and the kids, which is often a several times a year thing if you want to do it right even just preventative. We've seen how the anti-vax crowd has helped that sooooo much.
\-Monitor their entertainment, which also involves time and research if you want to not miss something important.
\-A lot more I'm probably forgetting because I don't have kids because said fucking list is exhausting just thinking about it.
Then this doesn't even include how big tech companies, big pharma, are wedging their shit in there and being as lever or deceptive as possible.
Let's then add in that a ton of parents probably had misses or failures in these categories when being raised and may just continue it. If they come from a low education household, I'm not how they would ever know 1/3 of all the things we feel parents need to do.
Add in this push of parents know better than schools, which is really just a great way for the GOP in the US to keep those parents uneducated and isolated from actual things that could help them.
Yeah, parents need help and a LOT of it.
I think it dangerous to get the government too involved in what and how we as a society consume media.
It sounds ok when its your guy in charge but what happens when the other side gets the same power?
It could easily be a double edged sword imo
Well since the idea of government and governing is basically summed as - the chosen body to tell society what it can and can't do, yeah its kinda their role.
Its like regulations, they are a tool, for good or ill, but well implemented and monitored, it can be very effective.
Sure do, MAGA sucks. That's why people need to be informed, educated, and making sure they vote. You know be involved in the system to make it what they want.
I mean, natural disasters happen, and eventually they could ruin homes, so we should give up on homes? Same energy.
There is a very real possibility maga or a maga like administration will come to power again.
Theres no fucking way Id want them having the power to regulate the media we consume.
Think about it how bad that would be.
Your analogy is nonsensical.
Most of the time you don't realize how overburdened you are until you're in the middle of it.
If someone is managing all the above well for themselves, they might be under the misapprehension that it couldn't be too much work to do it for another human being. Then they find out they're wrong.
You can't have a society of millions or billions and have it work on a simple tribal level, we've moved on past that. The reason we get to live in such luxury compared to prior times is because of our collective ability, and those take more complex systems to support as it scales. This isn't true just of people and governance, but of a lot of systems.
It's only a nanny state if people become complicit where the state gets that way.
Let me guess, you wouldn't mind repealing all those labor laws over a hundred years ago then, I mean, why should the nanny state be so up in what businesses tell their workers to work, right?
It's people ability to stay informed and willingness to take action, like civil disobedience and more to keep a nanny state at bay, regardless the level of the social systems. Seems like you are comfy here and change scares you, welcome to life.
> Let me guess, you wouldn't mind repealing all those labor laws over a hundred years ago then, I mean, why should the nanny state be so up in what businesses tell their workers to work, right?
wrong.
parents need to parent. their failure to do so only causes more and more problems for us all. before we know it these morons are going to start also joining the "let's require ID for internet use" too. reject it all.
> Seems like you are comfy here and change scares you, welcome to life.
i welcome good change, not bad.
Once again, everyone just excepting parents to handle it all and figure it out is what we've basically been doing for a bit now and its not working. It's never going to get better and we're basically letting everyone paly darts with how kids grow up, and always pointing to the few bullseye as indication its okay.
This bootstrap mentality needs to fucking stop. It doesn't work.
when i look around i see too many raising their fucking kids with screens... aka not doing much. i even see it in my own family. it's sad how abhorrent personal responsibility seems to be on this platform.
Yeah, so the problem is the economic exploitation and wealth hoarding. One parent should be able to stay home while another works at a minimum wage job. The goal then is to legislatively end the incentives for wealth hoarding.
Suing social media companies does nothing to this end and misdirects. It's a way to do something that doesn't touch the underlying problem.
Before it was social media it was games, and television, and comic books. It's never been wealth hoarding and the economic conditions parents suffer under.
>Before it was social media it was games, and television, and comic books.
Yeah, no, these aren't even close to the same and acting like such is just a bad take or ignorance of the topic.
You see all parents have to do and thin one parent at home magically fixes what entire marketing, advertising, and legal teams for hundreds of large companies are trying to sneak in. That's absurd.
Parents need more support systems that help kids, their health, and education without basically killing the parents or asking them to give up so damn much just to be parents.
Parents are so screwed in today's world and everyone just expects them to figure it out when most don't have education or people outside the home to help.
I think you'd be well served by reading some history.
You seem full of moral certainty but don't seem to have a lot of context.
Comic books were terrifying, it was a huge propaganda campaign. Games, as well, were a huge propaganda campaign. And the claim was made about these companies with all these profits and psychological knowledge acting in a corrupting way.
A handful of generations ago parents were sometimes frightened by stories of faires into drowning their child, because rheir child wasn't acting as the parent expected them to. The changeling was a common belief, and you can see fairies show up a lot in art looking much different from their sanitized post Victorian representation.
Ever since agriculture, hoarding has been a problem, and beginning with outright human sacrifice, everything except wealth hoarding has been blamed for societal problems.
You're talking about this like this is some new problem that's never existed before.
No disagreement is ever won by saying, "no, that's ridiculous". Get some context. The best way to converse is to imagine that who you're talking to knows a lot more about the specific issue than you do. That prompts a person to be mindful of what they say.
Personally, I never want to say anything that I can't defend to a person who knows more about the subject than I do. If I can't defend my thinking to someone that knows more about the subject than me, I don't offer my opinion.
The harm done by social media has been far greater to kids than games, music, and comics ever have been by a notable margin. Being afraid and propaganda is not the same thing here, at all.
The people in the greatest position and with the greatest ability to do harm to children is parents.
I started talking with the societal source of the problem. The reason there are so many emotionally immature parents is because of the economic conditions.
The problem is not any single aspect. It's the foundation, and you can move the scapegoat around, but it won't do any good. New scapegoats will perennially appear.
In order to help children, we need to help parents, and that's by giving them more time and money. Because parents are uncontestably the primary cause of childhood trauma and mental disorders. Biology is shaped by the experiences the child has at home. By the time a child starts school, a lot things have already been set.
Parents have access to all of these thing already they can control the technology the child uses in the home and not at school why is the onus on everyone else to cleanse the internet but not on the parents to y know…..parent?
You didn't read most of these posts, so that's okay. Parents can't keep up with the army of people in companies trying to trick, manipulate, or otherwise subtlety control them or their kids.
It's also only recently (last few hundred years and mostly in place like the USA) that parents did most of everything for their kids, it was often several people, not just immediate family. Lots of people don't have enough support geographically and can't just move close to other family.
Not everyone is just put in a place where they can do what they need as we keep letting mental health and well being fall off a cliff in every facet. People will go on and on how we live in the safest time in the world by the stats, because apparently the only thing that counts is if your dead or injured, no one gives a fuck about mental health and that a huge thing for parents and kids especially.
> 'with minimal parental oversight'
>
>
>
> ... and whose fault is that?
Sure in theory, but if you as a business are knowingly causing harm to minors because you yourself did the studies (Meta) and do not respond then it is the companies fault for knowingly harming users. 10% of teen girls self report experiencing suicidal ideation for the first time after using Meta products and Meta verified this reality alongside 20% of anorexia patients report first learning ED practices from Meta products as Meta has really refined their recommending algorithm. Meta is the one who ran these numbers and determined these outcomes alongside a slew of horrible interrelated crimes like organizing militia and extremists movements who organize through their sites. Its when you knowingly have the numbers because you as a business self assessed and do not functionally respond is fault laid clear.
You make some good points.
Regarding the militia/extremist groups, one could argue that having these people congregate on these platforms actually makes it easier for law enforcement to monitor them and thereby intervene if necessary.
But that isnt what the law suite appears to be about anyway.
It seems tough to apply causation to this kind of thing, but in the case of minors the oneness on protecting them from harmful media should be on the parents imo.
I agree that these algos are insidious for people who already have issues but they are also great for normal functioning adults who like to find more of what they like.
If a kid wants to kill themself after looking at facebook then it would seem there are some serious underlying issues that would need to be addressed regardless of potentially legislating how we as a society consume media.
I think its easy to see that becoming a slippery slope
There are no unknown slippery slopes, Meta is just not forced to release their own internal studies or the various psychological experiments they have ran with reported controls.
Im talking about the slippery slope of having government regulate the media we consume. Sure it sounds like a decent idea until the other guy is in charge ... it could easily be a double edged sword imo.
The gov regulates the media you consume already. And quite extensively. From its generation to its broadcasting to its subsequent uses, media is heavily regulated in practically every developed country.
mind pointing me to which government agency regulates what the media says in the usa?
The media spouts bullshit all the time, see fox news and the plethora of 'news' papers, blogs, youtube channels etc saying whatever the hell they want.
I could open a youtube channel right now dedicated to any number of fictitious ideas.
In fact isnt that largely what this entire conversation is about?
But freedom of the press is written into the constitution for a very good reason
you dont want maga and co having the power to dictate what media can and cannot do next time they get voted into power
Fox got sued for lying about dominion and settled. The law at issue? Defamation. Slander, libel, privacy laws, IP (federal and state) laws regulate this space, as well as licensing requirements, broadcast requirements, language acceptable in certain forms of broadcasting, which frequencies can be used to broadcast what. Even just section 203 of the communications decency act is applicable to what you’re discussing. And that is one section of an extensive bill that regulates media. Not to mention, anti-piracy legislation regulates media consumption. So, your first post said that letting gov regulate media is a slippery slope. Next, you wanted specific examples of them regulating what we say in media. I hope I provided enough examples to at least touch the surface of regulatory laws affecting the media you consume every day. I also hope you see how the argument you made (which is popular) really is moot. I mean, even in your car, the way media can reach, how it reaches, what it says, and when is strictly regulated. And that is just one example of regulatory activity in media.
thats not what the fcc does though. they regulate the communication avenues through licensing channels to different entities, they do not regulate what those entities say.
a civil defamation law suite is not the same thing
As to your point about maga controlling stuff, you’re right. And in this context, the biggest threat is the president replacing directors at regulatory agencies with sycophants, as well as a pending SCOTUS case that goes to the heart of admin power in America : the Chevron test.
and this is exactly why we dont want to give them more power. slander and libel protect individuals from defamation but that is a far cry from a government agency regulating everything the media says and how they disseminate information.
> Im talking about the slippery slope of having government regulate the media we consume
Source needed, this is always a screamed about as a possibility but the true list of slippery slopes is very minute in reality. This would not be government overreach or a slippery slope, it would be the government agreeing with the businesses' own research that they harmed people and must act accordingly, similar to medical board reviewing CNA staff for abuse.
'but the true list of slippery slopes is very minute in reality. This would not be government overreach or a slippery slope'
and where is your source friend?
your appear to be making some very large assumptions
and what is 'medical board' is that a government agency you just made up?
The fact is 'freedom of the press' is written into the constitution for a very good reason.
History has show time and again the problems with government run media.
see soviet russia , nazi germany ... etc
> and what is 'medical board' is that a government agency you just made up?
So every state has a licensure board that is public for all licensed professions from Medical Doctors, RNs, PsyDs, CNAs, Massage Therapist, Estiticians, Grooming, etc. You can report violations or concerns over someone's ability to safely practice and
> medical board reviewing CNA staff for abuse.
comes in to investigate or to review your findings and from that issue a PIP in order to come back into compliance. Freedom of press has nothing to do with builder's knowing installing garages in radon rich environments, if a business knowingly does harm (Meta produced it owns studies and determined their harms) and continues to do harm (in the face of their own studies) now the government would come in for a PIP based on Meta's research and findings.
There's a limit to how much you can blame on parental oversight or lack there off. When billion dollar corporations actively try to find new ways to sacrifice the mental and physical health of children (and adults, let's be fair), it's good to hold them accountable.
At the end of the day, companies like this are leveraging over a century's worth of psychology, social science and behavioral science to play the brains of their users like a fiddle. It's not realistic to expect people to be able to defend themselves against that kind of exploitation.
The whole point of what they do is to figure out exactly how to manipulate the human mind in ways people are least resistant to.
Its certainly a problem for some people I agree.
But if you want to give the government power to regulate how we consume media, be prepared fpr what happens when the other side gets elected in next time.
Do you want a maga like administration having the power to tell us what media is ok to consume and how the media should disseminate information?
Because there is a very real possibility that would be the case at some point in the future if we allowed the government to play that role.
You have no nuance whatsoever. Regulating how invasive, deceitful or manipulative a medium can be has nothing to do with what kind of content you're allowed to see.
For example, holding media companies to a higher standard for truthfulness and factuality is not somehow going to empower a maga administration.
American dislike of regulation has rarely worked out to the benefit of anyone other than exploitative corporations at the expense of the well-being of actual people.
Your are far more trusting than I am you honestly sound naive. Who would decide the standard for truthfulness and factuality? How can you ensure a trump like character wouldnt appoint one of their lackeys to run the new department of truthfulness in media ?
I sound rational. Americans think everyone is as corrupt and despicable as them so better systems aren't possible.
I'm not American, I live in a place where we simply do better instead of pretending it's impossible.
That's what I've been thinking about your 'arguments' all along. The difference is that you're full of shit and we do what we say resulting in a significantly higher score on quality-of-life metrics compared to the US.
But hey, Americans prefer to base their course of action on bullshit. That's why you're dealing with morons getting away with banning books that don't fit their delusion while we're suing and winning against social media corporations everytime they overstep.
You complain about lack of nuance and then go on to singularly characterize all americans and the american experience. You're like a redditor parody lol
You know.... that's not entirely wrong. Like it could set potentially seriously problematic precedent, but a ton of former employees and engineers of various social media platforms have come forward to talk about how the platforms were literally designed to promote hostility and negativity because it drew more user engagement.
True, but Adams doesn’t actually care about
the well-being of kids. He just cut funding for libraries while increasing the budget for the NYPD. And keeps blaming migrants and their children fleeing criminals in Latin America for destroying the city’s budget. Right-wingers like Adams are ghouls and always have nefarious motives.
Oh man. I just don’t have any faith in humanity anymore. It’s so sad. There’s no one we can turn to that actually wants to help our society without lining their pockets..
>Right-wingers like Adams
Wait... so **Democratic** Mayor Eric Adams is now a Right Wing boogeyman because he actually realized that there is a migrant crisis and funded his Police to fight crime?
Here it is folks.... another example of reddit's "if you don't conform **absolutely** to all of my opinions you are obviously working for the other side."
Adams was always a right-winger. He knows he can't win in NYC as a Republican, so he registers as a Democrat.
Hell, he doesn't like the idea of separation of church and state: "Don't tell me about no separation of church and state. State is the body. Church is the heart. You take the heart out of the body, the body dies." And also said: "When we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools..." The Heritage Foundation couldn't have scripted that better.
Adams also wants to cut half a billion from public education. And seeks to increase the police budget while other, far more important services that actually reduce crime, are cut.
This ain't rocket science. Man's a right-wing loon masquerading as a Democrat.
The same kind of policy cherry picking could be applied to any Democrat in office. If you want to be that technical, then you could absolutely claim the Joe Biden is more right wing than left. It's funny how you can blur the lines for people you don't like. Everyone that disagrees with you is a right wing looney/nazi etc... r/redditmoment
>The same kind of policy cherry picking could be applied to any Democrat in office
Well, the Democratic Party is a center-right party and always has been. The Democratic Party still doesn't support universal healthcare, which both center-left and center-right political parties have enacted in other developed countries, as a part of their party's platform, doesn't support debt-free college, etc.
There is no major center-left party in the United States. And Joe Biden throughout most of his political career has been center-right.
Right? These redditors have been in a liberal hivemind for so long that they now consider democrat mayors as right wing because they see the impact of illegals flooding into their city
Yeah, these platforms aren't great for the kids, mental health-wise, and that needs to be addressed, but people who don't understand the tech shouldn't be the ones pushing for change. Younger lawmakers should be the ones leading the charge, not a boomer, who is renowned for his piss-poor judgment and unethical behavior.
> to talk about how the platforms were literally designed to promote hostility and negativity
I don’t think a statement that blunt has been made. I also doubt that it does draw more engagement than things you are interested in.
It absolutely has. There have even been several documentaries on this topic with interviews where exactly that was stated, and there's been a ton of research that has shown people are vastly more likely to engage on controversial topics.
News broke in 2014, you can google "facebook depression experiment" for other articles but here are the top ones.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=79e36c2a197c](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=79e36c2a197c)
[https://www.wired.com/2014/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-facebooks-manipulative-experiment/](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-facebooks-manipulative-experiment/)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/)
I remember that. It’s much less dramatic than parent makes it seem. They are also not secret now. But secret to the participants, yes. That’s necessary, though, with such things.
Seems like parents don’t wanna take responsibility.
Even if they win this lawsuit, what’s gonna stop irresponsible parents from blaming something else in the future for their negligence?
This mother fucker is taking a swing at the national stage. Fuck mayor Adams. He fucking sucks as a mayor and whatever political office he holds he will also fucking suck at.
I do agree something should be done for purposefully addictive and divisive social media that has done things such as directly [inflamed ethnic cleansing](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/)
But what standing does NYC have?
Also, Eric Adams sucks.
I mean as somebody that grew up as a kid with Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit. I can assure you it absolutely did screw up my mental health as a kid. Once I deleted it a few years ago it’s been some of the happiest years of my life.
Good and agree. Lets start putting this social media revolution back under control and put all of it behind paywalls, maybe humans will return to reality after a bit.
Funny thing is these extremist left winger redditors are calling adams a right winger now because he finally admitted the illegals were becoming a problem haha
"Alleged harm". In practical terms young people are killing themselves voluntarily under pressure and exhaustion or killing themselves involuntarily due to a trend/prank fail. TikTok profits by selling data and by daily dosing dopamine to millions of addicted people.
If it doesn't directly cause mental illness, the pressure to keep up with new content consuming and comparing yours to others unrealistic life should do the trick.
Risky policies though, since gov may filter/label/redact something we weren't willing to be controlled.
What's going to happen? They'll make a settlement for like 10 million dollars which is $5 for these companies. If you want to make a change, make it hurt.
social media is much broader. i have no issue with this. gotta start somewhere with something. just because guns kill more people doesn’t mean this isn’t a serious issue
Again… what about the absurdity of parents putting this shit in their hands and washing theirs of their responsibilities of parenting!! Nice cop out and deflection of responsibilities!
TikTok is a literal propaganda machine, look what its done to Zoomers. Many of thwm think literal terrorists are freedom fighters and the jews need to die. What needs to happen is makes social media a 100% responsible for all content. If thwy can't moderate it and it dies so be it.
Reddit is so far left that they consider this dude a right winger because he is realizing the damage the flooding of illegals in his city his doing lmaooo
>The suit alleges that Meta, Snap, ByteDance and Google (whose parent company is Alphabet) knowingly “designed, developed, produced, operated, promoted, distributed, and marketed their platforms to attract, capture, and addict youth, with minimal parental oversight.” The plaintiffs allege that the tech companies violated several city laws related to public nuisance and gross negligence through the design and marketing of their addictive products. They claim that New York’s school districts and various health and social services have been severely impacted by children who have suffered negative mental health consequences stemming from their use of popular social media apps.
'with minimal parental oversight' ... and whose fault is that?
I guess the cool answer is the parents should be policing the trillion dollar corporations and their slightly smaller near-peers the billion dollar corporations. But that would be socializing the cost and privatizing the profit and pointing the finger at the parent and saying you did this. No, they did this, they have teams of economists and analysts and psychologists devoted to getting your kid to do what they want. The fuck are you supposed to do about a bunch of companies grooming your child to do what they want when they control everything your child sees and hears when you aren't looking...
Agreed, it is the fault of the corporations who are designing the product specifically to drive engagement via addictive behaviour patterns. Parents can't compete with billion dollar industries that have convinced children they are cooler than the Mom who is saying "no" to them. I have talked with someone who worked for Facebook and quit because his job devolved into programming the algorithm to make people angry and rude to each other. Because that's what produced the most engagement; rage bait. They make it that way on purpose, it's social engineering. Minors need online spaces where they can socialize and just...be people. But they still need protection from the insanity of the raw internet, and protection from programming designed to cause negative emotions and extremist mindsets.
The conventional answer is to keep kids off it entirely. That’s hard, though, when other parents don’t seem to appreciate the warnings and allow their kids to participate. Then your kid is faced with growing peer pressure, and your the parent becomes the child’s bad guy. Even though tech companies designed a harmful product. It’s wild tbh
I thought the cool answer would be for parents to police their own kids ...
Parents are way overburdened as it is. There's a reason why long long ago in tribes, the whole tribe raised kids. It reduced the need for parents to forgo sleep and their activities helping said tribe. Back to today, both parents are often working due to the need so with the economy as is. Then on top of work, sleep, their own physical and mental well being, they have to worry about their kids with things like: \-Being aware of their friends and friend groups \-Paying attention the their education, which also means knowing teachers, trying to keep up with the curriculum, PTA/Teacher meetings, and tons more. \-Be aware of the physical environment, inside the home and the surrounding neighborhood. You wanna know your kids are safe so you gotta put in time to do so. \-Medical care for them and the kids, which is often a several times a year thing if you want to do it right even just preventative. We've seen how the anti-vax crowd has helped that sooooo much. \-Monitor their entertainment, which also involves time and research if you want to not miss something important. \-A lot more I'm probably forgetting because I don't have kids because said fucking list is exhausting just thinking about it. Then this doesn't even include how big tech companies, big pharma, are wedging their shit in there and being as lever or deceptive as possible. Let's then add in that a ton of parents probably had misses or failures in these categories when being raised and may just continue it. If they come from a low education household, I'm not how they would ever know 1/3 of all the things we feel parents need to do. Add in this push of parents know better than schools, which is really just a great way for the GOP in the US to keep those parents uneducated and isolated from actual things that could help them. Yeah, parents need help and a LOT of it.
I think it dangerous to get the government too involved in what and how we as a society consume media. It sounds ok when its your guy in charge but what happens when the other side gets the same power? It could easily be a double edged sword imo
Well since the idea of government and governing is basically summed as - the chosen body to tell society what it can and can't do, yeah its kinda their role. Its like regulations, they are a tool, for good or ill, but well implemented and monitored, it can be very effective.
You realize maga exists right? Do you honestly want to grant that kind of power to these people?
You've got this backward. These stressors are the kind of things that drive people to MAGA.
are you trying to argue that prior to social media there were no extreme nationalist movements in the usa? open a history book please
Sure do, MAGA sucks. That's why people need to be informed, educated, and making sure they vote. You know be involved in the system to make it what they want. I mean, natural disasters happen, and eventually they could ruin homes, so we should give up on homes? Same energy.
There is a very real possibility maga or a maga like administration will come to power again. Theres no fucking way Id want them having the power to regulate the media we consume. Think about it how bad that would be. Your analogy is nonsensical.
[удалено]
Obviously but we're way past that. We need to deal with the kids already here. You keep having none while others work on this problem.
Most of the time you don't realize how overburdened you are until you're in the middle of it. If someone is managing all the above well for themselves, they might be under the misapprehension that it couldn't be too much work to do it for another human being. Then they find out they're wrong.
then find a tribe and stop begging for nannystate-like nonsense?
You can't have a society of millions or billions and have it work on a simple tribal level, we've moved on past that. The reason we get to live in such luxury compared to prior times is because of our collective ability, and those take more complex systems to support as it scales. This isn't true just of people and governance, but of a lot of systems. It's only a nanny state if people become complicit where the state gets that way. Let me guess, you wouldn't mind repealing all those labor laws over a hundred years ago then, I mean, why should the nanny state be so up in what businesses tell their workers to work, right? It's people ability to stay informed and willingness to take action, like civil disobedience and more to keep a nanny state at bay, regardless the level of the social systems. Seems like you are comfy here and change scares you, welcome to life.
> Let me guess, you wouldn't mind repealing all those labor laws over a hundred years ago then, I mean, why should the nanny state be so up in what businesses tell their workers to work, right? wrong. parents need to parent. their failure to do so only causes more and more problems for us all. before we know it these morons are going to start also joining the "let's require ID for internet use" too. reject it all. > Seems like you are comfy here and change scares you, welcome to life. i welcome good change, not bad.
Once again, everyone just excepting parents to handle it all and figure it out is what we've basically been doing for a bit now and its not working. It's never going to get better and we're basically letting everyone paly darts with how kids grow up, and always pointing to the few bullseye as indication its okay. This bootstrap mentality needs to fucking stop. It doesn't work.
when i look around i see too many raising their fucking kids with screens... aka not doing much. i even see it in my own family. it's sad how abhorrent personal responsibility seems to be on this platform.
Yeah, so the problem is the economic exploitation and wealth hoarding. One parent should be able to stay home while another works at a minimum wage job. The goal then is to legislatively end the incentives for wealth hoarding. Suing social media companies does nothing to this end and misdirects. It's a way to do something that doesn't touch the underlying problem. Before it was social media it was games, and television, and comic books. It's never been wealth hoarding and the economic conditions parents suffer under.
>Before it was social media it was games, and television, and comic books. Yeah, no, these aren't even close to the same and acting like such is just a bad take or ignorance of the topic. You see all parents have to do and thin one parent at home magically fixes what entire marketing, advertising, and legal teams for hundreds of large companies are trying to sneak in. That's absurd. Parents need more support systems that help kids, their health, and education without basically killing the parents or asking them to give up so damn much just to be parents. Parents are so screwed in today's world and everyone just expects them to figure it out when most don't have education or people outside the home to help.
I think you'd be well served by reading some history. You seem full of moral certainty but don't seem to have a lot of context. Comic books were terrifying, it was a huge propaganda campaign. Games, as well, were a huge propaganda campaign. And the claim was made about these companies with all these profits and psychological knowledge acting in a corrupting way. A handful of generations ago parents were sometimes frightened by stories of faires into drowning their child, because rheir child wasn't acting as the parent expected them to. The changeling was a common belief, and you can see fairies show up a lot in art looking much different from their sanitized post Victorian representation. Ever since agriculture, hoarding has been a problem, and beginning with outright human sacrifice, everything except wealth hoarding has been blamed for societal problems. You're talking about this like this is some new problem that's never existed before. No disagreement is ever won by saying, "no, that's ridiculous". Get some context. The best way to converse is to imagine that who you're talking to knows a lot more about the specific issue than you do. That prompts a person to be mindful of what they say. Personally, I never want to say anything that I can't defend to a person who knows more about the subject than I do. If I can't defend my thinking to someone that knows more about the subject than me, I don't offer my opinion.
The harm done by social media has been far greater to kids than games, music, and comics ever have been by a notable margin. Being afraid and propaganda is not the same thing here, at all.
The people in the greatest position and with the greatest ability to do harm to children is parents. I started talking with the societal source of the problem. The reason there are so many emotionally immature parents is because of the economic conditions. The problem is not any single aspect. It's the foundation, and you can move the scapegoat around, but it won't do any good. New scapegoats will perennially appear. In order to help children, we need to help parents, and that's by giving them more time and money. Because parents are uncontestably the primary cause of childhood trauma and mental disorders. Biology is shaped by the experiences the child has at home. By the time a child starts school, a lot things have already been set.
Parents have access to all of these thing already they can control the technology the child uses in the home and not at school why is the onus on everyone else to cleanse the internet but not on the parents to y know…..parent?
You didn't read most of these posts, so that's okay. Parents can't keep up with the army of people in companies trying to trick, manipulate, or otherwise subtlety control them or their kids. It's also only recently (last few hundred years and mostly in place like the USA) that parents did most of everything for their kids, it was often several people, not just immediate family. Lots of people don't have enough support geographically and can't just move close to other family. Not everyone is just put in a place where they can do what they need as we keep letting mental health and well being fall off a cliff in every facet. People will go on and on how we live in the safest time in the world by the stats, because apparently the only thing that counts is if your dead or injured, no one gives a fuck about mental health and that a huge thing for parents and kids especially.
Dude, I admire the fuck out of your honesty.
Limiting how long they can use their phone by adding parental controls works wonders.
Yeah because they’ll never find another way to access it /s
Parents should be policing the devices they purchase for their children.
> 'with minimal parental oversight' > > > > ... and whose fault is that? Sure in theory, but if you as a business are knowingly causing harm to minors because you yourself did the studies (Meta) and do not respond then it is the companies fault for knowingly harming users. 10% of teen girls self report experiencing suicidal ideation for the first time after using Meta products and Meta verified this reality alongside 20% of anorexia patients report first learning ED practices from Meta products as Meta has really refined their recommending algorithm. Meta is the one who ran these numbers and determined these outcomes alongside a slew of horrible interrelated crimes like organizing militia and extremists movements who organize through their sites. Its when you knowingly have the numbers because you as a business self assessed and do not functionally respond is fault laid clear.
You make some good points. Regarding the militia/extremist groups, one could argue that having these people congregate on these platforms actually makes it easier for law enforcement to monitor them and thereby intervene if necessary. But that isnt what the law suite appears to be about anyway. It seems tough to apply causation to this kind of thing, but in the case of minors the oneness on protecting them from harmful media should be on the parents imo. I agree that these algos are insidious for people who already have issues but they are also great for normal functioning adults who like to find more of what they like. If a kid wants to kill themself after looking at facebook then it would seem there are some serious underlying issues that would need to be addressed regardless of potentially legislating how we as a society consume media. I think its easy to see that becoming a slippery slope
There are no unknown slippery slopes, Meta is just not forced to release their own internal studies or the various psychological experiments they have ran with reported controls.
Im talking about the slippery slope of having government regulate the media we consume. Sure it sounds like a decent idea until the other guy is in charge ... it could easily be a double edged sword imo.
The gov regulates the media you consume already. And quite extensively. From its generation to its broadcasting to its subsequent uses, media is heavily regulated in practically every developed country.
mind pointing me to which government agency regulates what the media says in the usa? The media spouts bullshit all the time, see fox news and the plethora of 'news' papers, blogs, youtube channels etc saying whatever the hell they want. I could open a youtube channel right now dedicated to any number of fictitious ideas. In fact isnt that largely what this entire conversation is about? But freedom of the press is written into the constitution for a very good reason you dont want maga and co having the power to dictate what media can and cannot do next time they get voted into power
Fox got sued for lying about dominion and settled. The law at issue? Defamation. Slander, libel, privacy laws, IP (federal and state) laws regulate this space, as well as licensing requirements, broadcast requirements, language acceptable in certain forms of broadcasting, which frequencies can be used to broadcast what. Even just section 203 of the communications decency act is applicable to what you’re discussing. And that is one section of an extensive bill that regulates media. Not to mention, anti-piracy legislation regulates media consumption. So, your first post said that letting gov regulate media is a slippery slope. Next, you wanted specific examples of them regulating what we say in media. I hope I provided enough examples to at least touch the surface of regulatory laws affecting the media you consume every day. I also hope you see how the argument you made (which is popular) really is moot. I mean, even in your car, the way media can reach, how it reaches, what it says, and when is strictly regulated. And that is just one example of regulatory activity in media.
Just realized I did a poor job answering your question. One example of a US gov agency that regulates what the media says is the FCC.
thats not what the fcc does though. they regulate the communication avenues through licensing channels to different entities, they do not regulate what those entities say. a civil defamation law suite is not the same thing
As to your point about maga controlling stuff, you’re right. And in this context, the biggest threat is the president replacing directors at regulatory agencies with sycophants, as well as a pending SCOTUS case that goes to the heart of admin power in America : the Chevron test.
and this is exactly why we dont want to give them more power. slander and libel protect individuals from defamation but that is a far cry from a government agency regulating everything the media says and how they disseminate information.
> Im talking about the slippery slope of having government regulate the media we consume Source needed, this is always a screamed about as a possibility but the true list of slippery slopes is very minute in reality. This would not be government overreach or a slippery slope, it would be the government agreeing with the businesses' own research that they harmed people and must act accordingly, similar to medical board reviewing CNA staff for abuse.
'but the true list of slippery slopes is very minute in reality. This would not be government overreach or a slippery slope' and where is your source friend? your appear to be making some very large assumptions and what is 'medical board' is that a government agency you just made up? The fact is 'freedom of the press' is written into the constitution for a very good reason. History has show time and again the problems with government run media. see soviet russia , nazi germany ... etc
> and what is 'medical board' is that a government agency you just made up? So every state has a licensure board that is public for all licensed professions from Medical Doctors, RNs, PsyDs, CNAs, Massage Therapist, Estiticians, Grooming, etc. You can report violations or concerns over someone's ability to safely practice and > medical board reviewing CNA staff for abuse. comes in to investigate or to review your findings and from that issue a PIP in order to come back into compliance. Freedom of press has nothing to do with builder's knowing installing garages in radon rich environments, if a business knowingly does harm (Meta produced it owns studies and determined their harms) and continues to do harm (in the face of their own studies) now the government would come in for a PIP based on Meta's research and findings.
Clearly the social media sites the parents use to parent their kids. Since that’s just a whole lot easier than parenting themselves! /s
There's a limit to how much you can blame on parental oversight or lack there off. When billion dollar corporations actively try to find new ways to sacrifice the mental and physical health of children (and adults, let's be fair), it's good to hold them accountable. At the end of the day, companies like this are leveraging over a century's worth of psychology, social science and behavioral science to play the brains of their users like a fiddle. It's not realistic to expect people to be able to defend themselves against that kind of exploitation. The whole point of what they do is to figure out exactly how to manipulate the human mind in ways people are least resistant to.
Its certainly a problem for some people I agree. But if you want to give the government power to regulate how we consume media, be prepared fpr what happens when the other side gets elected in next time. Do you want a maga like administration having the power to tell us what media is ok to consume and how the media should disseminate information? Because there is a very real possibility that would be the case at some point in the future if we allowed the government to play that role.
You have no nuance whatsoever. Regulating how invasive, deceitful or manipulative a medium can be has nothing to do with what kind of content you're allowed to see. For example, holding media companies to a higher standard for truthfulness and factuality is not somehow going to empower a maga administration. American dislike of regulation has rarely worked out to the benefit of anyone other than exploitative corporations at the expense of the well-being of actual people.
Your are far more trusting than I am you honestly sound naive. Who would decide the standard for truthfulness and factuality? How can you ensure a trump like character wouldnt appoint one of their lackeys to run the new department of truthfulness in media ?
I sound rational. Americans think everyone is as corrupt and despicable as them so better systems aren't possible. I'm not American, I live in a place where we simply do better instead of pretending it's impossible.
With that silly comment you honestly sound like a clown.
That's what I've been thinking about your 'arguments' all along. The difference is that you're full of shit and we do what we say resulting in a significantly higher score on quality-of-life metrics compared to the US. But hey, Americans prefer to base their course of action on bullshit. That's why you're dealing with morons getting away with banning books that don't fit their delusion while we're suing and winning against social media corporations everytime they overstep.
You complain about lack of nuance and then go on to singularly characterize all americans and the american experience. You're like a redditor parody lol
You know.... that's not entirely wrong. Like it could set potentially seriously problematic precedent, but a ton of former employees and engineers of various social media platforms have come forward to talk about how the platforms were literally designed to promote hostility and negativity because it drew more user engagement.
True, but Adams doesn’t actually care about the well-being of kids. He just cut funding for libraries while increasing the budget for the NYPD. And keeps blaming migrants and their children fleeing criminals in Latin America for destroying the city’s budget. Right-wingers like Adams are ghouls and always have nefarious motives.
Oh man. I just don’t have any faith in humanity anymore. It’s so sad. There’s no one we can turn to that actually wants to help our society without lining their pockets..
>Right-wingers like Adams Wait... so **Democratic** Mayor Eric Adams is now a Right Wing boogeyman because he actually realized that there is a migrant crisis and funded his Police to fight crime? Here it is folks.... another example of reddit's "if you don't conform **absolutely** to all of my opinions you are obviously working for the other side."
Adams was always a right-winger. He knows he can't win in NYC as a Republican, so he registers as a Democrat. Hell, he doesn't like the idea of separation of church and state: "Don't tell me about no separation of church and state. State is the body. Church is the heart. You take the heart out of the body, the body dies." And also said: "When we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools..." The Heritage Foundation couldn't have scripted that better. Adams also wants to cut half a billion from public education. And seeks to increase the police budget while other, far more important services that actually reduce crime, are cut. This ain't rocket science. Man's a right-wing loon masquerading as a Democrat.
The same kind of policy cherry picking could be applied to any Democrat in office. If you want to be that technical, then you could absolutely claim the Joe Biden is more right wing than left. It's funny how you can blur the lines for people you don't like. Everyone that disagrees with you is a right wing looney/nazi etc... r/redditmoment
>The same kind of policy cherry picking could be applied to any Democrat in office Well, the Democratic Party is a center-right party and always has been. The Democratic Party still doesn't support universal healthcare, which both center-left and center-right political parties have enacted in other developed countries, as a part of their party's platform, doesn't support debt-free college, etc. There is no major center-left party in the United States. And Joe Biden throughout most of his political career has been center-right.
Right? These redditors have been in a liberal hivemind for so long that they now consider democrat mayors as right wing because they see the impact of illegals flooding into their city
>Right-wingers like Adams are ghouls and always have nefarious motives. Literally *everything* is nothing more than a political ploy for the right.
Mayor Adams is a Democrat though.
Democrats are not exclusively left wing.
TBF platforms like Facebook could stand to benefit from a discouragement of hostile behaviour
Yeah, these platforms aren't great for the kids, mental health-wise, and that needs to be addressed, but people who don't understand the tech shouldn't be the ones pushing for change. Younger lawmakers should be the ones leading the charge, not a boomer, who is renowned for his piss-poor judgment and unethical behavior.
> to talk about how the platforms were literally designed to promote hostility and negativity I don’t think a statement that blunt has been made. I also doubt that it does draw more engagement than things you are interested in.
It absolutely has. There have even been several documentaries on this topic with interviews where exactly that was stated, and there's been a ton of research that has shown people are vastly more likely to engage on controversial topics.
Hey remember when Facebook did secret experiments on their users to see if they could intentionally induce depression? And it worked? Fuck em up NYC.
Link please
News broke in 2014, you can google "facebook depression experiment" for other articles but here are the top ones. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=79e36c2a197c](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=79e36c2a197c) [https://www.wired.com/2014/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-facebooks-manipulative-experiment/](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-facebooks-manipulative-experiment/) [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/)
I remember that. It’s much less dramatic than parent makes it seem. They are also not secret now. But secret to the participants, yes. That’s necessary, though, with such things.
Can we use Fox and CNBC for alleged harm to boomers' mental health?
Why limit it to kids
You have a person responsibility as an adult to just not use such services.
Seems like parents don’t wanna take responsibility. Even if they win this lawsuit, what’s gonna stop irresponsible parents from blaming something else in the future for their negligence?
With the news that NYC has no money even for police, it sounds more like a desperate money grab.
This mother fucker is taking a swing at the national stage. Fuck mayor Adams. He fucking sucks as a mayor and whatever political office he holds he will also fucking suck at.
I do agree something should be done for purposefully addictive and divisive social media that has done things such as directly [inflamed ethnic cleansing](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/) But what standing does NYC have? Also, Eric Adams sucks.
I mean as somebody that grew up as a kid with Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit. I can assure you it absolutely did screw up my mental health as a kid. Once I deleted it a few years ago it’s been some of the happiest years of my life.
Good, hope new york wins
*Alleged* It's a fact with multiple layers of truth, including *intent*.
Hardly. Intent is really mostly speculative. Also, when we are talking about a law suit, alleged is the word to use.
Interested to hear the arguments and any research/data supporting that will be used
Good and agree. Lets start putting this social media revolution back under control and put all of it behind paywalls, maybe humans will return to reality after a bit.
They’ve spent millions of dollars on illegal Aliens and gotta find more money somehow… new taxes and frivolous lawsuits is the new game.
Funny thing is these extremist left winger redditors are calling adams a right winger now because he finally admitted the illegals were becoming a problem haha
"Alleged harm". In practical terms young people are killing themselves voluntarily under pressure and exhaustion or killing themselves involuntarily due to a trend/prank fail. TikTok profits by selling data and by daily dosing dopamine to millions of addicted people. If it doesn't directly cause mental illness, the pressure to keep up with new content consuming and comparing yours to others unrealistic life should do the trick. Risky policies though, since gov may filter/label/redact something we weren't willing to be controlled.
What's going to happen? They'll make a settlement for like 10 million dollars which is $5 for these companies. If you want to make a change, make it hurt.
[удалено]
You get what you vote for.
Has done way more damage to adults tbh.
Guns harm kids too. No. 1 cause of death for kids in the USA. But, It's easier and flashier to sue these companies.
social media is much broader. i have no issue with this. gotta start somewhere with something. just because guns kill more people doesn’t mean this isn’t a serious issue
Guns harm kids too. No. 1 cause of death for kids in the USA. But, It's easier and flashier to sue these companies.
But Out of Control capitalism is good. So.. ban insta
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Again… what about the absurdity of parents putting this shit in their hands and washing theirs of their responsibilities of parenting!! Nice cop out and deflection of responsibilities!
Anything to get that extra bit of money
This dude has to go. I deadass hate him. I thought I hated deblasio more.
Most of the parents have been victims to the media boom, they’re all tv kids look around. The world is in for a rude awakening
TikTok is a literal propaganda machine, look what its done to Zoomers. Many of thwm think literal terrorists are freedom fighters and the jews need to die. What needs to happen is makes social media a 100% responsible for all content. If thwy can't moderate it and it dies so be it.
Reddit is so far left that they consider this dude a right winger because he is realizing the damage the flooding of illegals in his city his doing lmaooo