I wrote an article last night about banning social media for children, which is a drive that is gathering momentum. However, what a lot of people forget is that the minimum age to use at least most of the popular social networks, is actually already 13 - as "imposed" by the platforms itself, which begs the question, what actually changes if the laws change?
Who becomes liable?
As someone who believes in a high degree of personal freedoms, I also believe that "freedom" as we often think about it isn't actually possible, as there are consequences to our behaviors. This means that we can do as we please, but there is a price to pay, and in order to not pay too higher price, we will regulate what we want to do, which means taking some responsibility for our actions. And this is where we run into problems.
It is easy to say that people should do as they please as long as they aren't hurting anyone, but what does that actually mean when applied? What is "hurting someone" and is it okay for instance that a parent do as they please in the way they raise their children? Is it okay to keep them uneducated, is it okay to have children live in squalor, to eat poor quality food, as long as the parents say it is okay?
And while most parents would never intentionally harm their children, a lot of unintentional harm can be done, with many possible causes, like lack of education, mental issues, and of course, self-regulation issues. If someone has poor self-regulation mechanisms, coupled with other factors like poor knowledge, their actions are likely to lead to pretty poor results. Is this acceptable?
And I guess this comes down to a question of what is an ethical society, because most people don't believe that humanity should work on a survival of the fittest mechanism. We can kind of see what happens when it does, because the economy encourages monopolization, where resources are controlled by a decreasing number of strengthening hands. Survival of the fittest is a concentration of power and once powerful enough, all-controlling.
No one wants that either.
People seem to expect that a society is going to look after and provide for the weak, those who cannot take care of themselves. But, what if the reason they can't look after themselves is self-inflicted - shouldn't they have the responsibility of their actions and pay the consequences? Or should people who choose not to participate in adding some kind of tangible value to society, be able to live off of what others provide?
Where is the line?
And you see the problem perhaps, because while we want a society that functions well and looks after people, we seem to expect that it is possible due to the kindness of humans working together. But, is that a possible reality, considering that we are increasingly disconnected from each other and do not have personal interdependencies, like in the past with clans and families.
The only way to work in our best interest without hurting others, is if we are better off by helping others be their best. However, this only extends so far, before the cost to help becomes too small for the gain. A tribe of 100 people might be able to manage it, but when we are operating globally with eight billion people all affecting each other to some degree, can it still work? Even the tribes had standardized rules that ordered them, with very low optionality.
I think that what most people don't like about government control, is that the very structure of it is not in the best interest of the people it is meant to help. What needs to change is the structure of governance. There should be the ability to self-direct, but there also has to be the opportunity to attempt and fail, and live to attempt again. There should be protection for the weakest among us, but there should also be the incentive for everyone to add value where they can to improve conditions. The focus should be on maximizing human wellbeing.
The current setup maximizes control.
Freedom is a funny thing, because we apply it in ways that we think we are protected, which isn't freedom. We all have freedom of speech, but we will pay the consequences for what we speak. We have freedom of behavior within the realms of our personal possibility, but again, we are going to pay the costs for our actions. Perhaps rather than demanding what we want, it would be better to ask what we are willing to pay for it.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
As you said, the platforms already have a ban for kids under 13 years old to satisfy COPPA, so if Australia had it's own similar regulation but to 14 or 15 I don't necessarily see a huge problem.
The problem with these kinds of regulation is that it's hard to apply a 'one-size fits all' regulation that doesn't also cause a bunch of problems... so I'd be happy to review my above statement if more information comes out.
I really wish there was way more comprehensive studies on all of this to actually help legislators make actual good policy.
I'm not sure I agree on the mobile phone bans that are happening around the United States, because again, it's nuanced and complex and implementation really matters. Personally I think it would be better to teach kids how to properly use their devices to their advantage and not to their disadvantage (ie, distraction)... banning them outright just shifts the problem to either the university level or the workforce (when suddenly they'll have full access to their phone but none of the tools/skills to prevent distraction).
In my very limited experience, people who want full freedom have very little understanding of the risks they're facing. I see it a lot in the US regarding seatbelts or bike helmets. People just don't understand the impact their decisions can have on others or society as a whole.
Yeah, but I think more will come in time. However, at a personal level, do we need all the studies, or do we act on what we observe and experience? If everyone who smokes is getting sick with cancer, do we need a study to tell us not to smoke?
Banning anything really doesn't work. Banning social media won't work. However, perhaps it will be enough for some parents to wake up and start doing their own research and analysis on the effects on their kids, and change some of the rules in the home.
It is like most things that are complex I assume - we can only focus on a narrow band of the factors, so overweigh them. People don't want to pay taxes, but they also want some level of healthcare provided. A few might say "I can afford to look after myself" but they don't know how they will be impacted by all those who can't afford it.
Yes, we definitely do.
Not everyone who smokes gets sick with cancer. Everyone has a story about a friend's grandpa who drank whiskey and smoked every day and lived to 95... you need studies with large data samples to actually determine what is accurate, what is anecdotal, and the differences between causation and correlation... especially when you have a very profitable industry willing to throw a lot of money to confuse the issue.
Do certain cigarettes' have different affects on different genetics, is it worse for people who have asthma from air pollution from nearby factories? I personally think studies are essential - you can only observe a really small sample of people in your own life.
I think banning things can totally work, but it has to make sense, it has to have wide support and it has to be enforced appropriately. Australia has dramatically changed drinking and driving culture in two decades - that's incredible... but it took a massive investment in Police and Booze buses and a huge public education process - and road fatalities have dropped significantly. Not to zero obviously, and cars are safer than they were, but it's an incredible achievement.
I do agree that banning social media won't work by itself, it has to be combined with a huge educational process to teach people how to use it appropriately to protect themselves and others.
In my experience, people who don't think they should pay taxes don't really understand how society actually works.
I think that if you only do what there are studies supporting (if it was possible), you would end up a pretty big mess.
But, they are also close to your own life - similar conditions. When 9 smokers die of lung cancer and 1 lives, do you tell your child to smoke, because they might be the one that survives?
Have you ever considered whether it was worth all the cost and energy? What other problems could have been tackled with the same money? Perhaps it might have had a better impact spent in another place.
I'm not super sure what you're saying here... but I think it's important that studies are peer-reviewed and replicable, and that other researchers challenge them with their own studies. There's ways to catalog it all so that it all contributes to ever-expanding human knowledge.
No, I absolutely wouldn't... but I also don't think many things in life are this clear cut or neat. I think it took much longer and a lot more data to determine the negative effects of second-hand smoke for example, because that wasn't as obvious.
Life is messy, there are millions of variables all the time, so I think the more information and the more research the better.
Absolutely! Everyone is going to have opinions on the efficacy and priority of an exercise like this... but this is where collecting as much data and research can help us determine if it was successful, if it was cost-effective and compare it to other exercises. Once you've got the data and information, only then can we really discuss if the effort was worth the reduction in road fatalities and injuries.
I grew up in a rural and mountainous area and I feel proud because my family was always very hardworking and self-sufficient, we all worked from very early in the morning and there was never a lack of food on the table, I would say that 70% of what we ate was from the crops and animals we raised, one of the things I realized is that the vast majority of people had many children. I think the family that had the fewest children had 10 children, that may be due to lack of education and awareness, but having so many children for me is crazy, with two children I almost went crazy. We are all educated from an early age to obey the beliefs they teach us, our parents to obey everything they teach us at school to obey everything the boss says, for example my children are free to do what they want when they want not because I am there to put a limit but there is a scolding or punishment and so we are living in this society....
In my house it has been totally different, from an early age we were instilled with autonomy and self-sufficiency. We were taught the value of things and that we should work for it. We were taught to be critical and that although you can find knowledge in books, they don't always tell the truth. To be submissive, no. We were taught to take the initiative.
That's very nice, I guess you have a nice family.
Large families can be for many reasons. What is interesting these days is that the wealthy are starting to have more kids, as they realize that they will need them to inherit what they have worked for perhaps. But, a large family also comes with social benefits, doesn't it?
If you are referring to state aid, this is seen more in a developed country, in countries like mine everything is stolen, if I suppose that analyzing it well a large family has its good side and its bad side.
The more time passes by the more people becomes selfish and thus pay attention only their wellbeings. Unfortunately, the economic crisis following pandemic has adversed this situation.
Yep. It has got worse in recent years, as people isolated intentionally on top of the already distancing nature of society.
I feel like freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences is a concept not enough people get.
I agree. Or they choose to ignore the downsides :)
What’s the essence of facing the consequences of what we say when we say that there is freedom of speech?
Well, that doesn’t mean we should say something bad or unnecessary…
We all want freedom but we gotta be sensible about the whole thing
What consequences are you willing to take in order to stay true to your beliefs?
Being free should be pursued with utmost sense of responsibility
Then is it freedom?