But if you’re being facetious, that’s why I specified “that” addiction.
I mean, if they banned everything that was harmful and addictive, then nicotine and alcohol would be banned too. But clearly they don’t. Yet those are banned for children.
I think that should also be allowed, but only under medical supervision. Ideally, there should be a legal path to pretty much anything you want to do, with controls in place to protect the public from your choices.
Are you kidding? There’s a whole “YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO” segment of the US population that cries until they die of dehydration every time the government says “regulation” three times in a mirror.
They are not. It is past time to call them on their psychological manipulation bullshit. Addictive feeds are also just the tip of the giant shitberg that corporate run social media has become.
Yes, but then eventually you’ll have to ban half the usual ads if applying the principle consistently, or it’ll be no good otherwise, cause they’ll manage to weasel out.
Social media are just what happens when a few gigantic non-transparent organizations get the usual Goebbels powers plus the ability to match people with content, people with people, people with groups as they see fit.
It’s both a legal and a technical problem. The legal part is about making this no-no. The technical part is by having truly decentralized asynchronous social media. Federation, like with ActivityPub, is insufficient, it has to be homogenous. I mean, I’d like it to use ActivityPub-connected servers as authentication providers and for contact directory, but not the rest.
EDIT: I think freenet.org , as in Locutus and not old Freenet we all love, is aimed at this exactly.
Why are “addictive feeds” OK for adults?
Because you don’t have the votes for your fascist nanny state.
They aren’t, but adults are allowed to decide about that addiction
I think it’s also the case that it has a bigger impact on developing brains, who might be more easily addicted.
I don’t have any evidence for this, I’m just guessing here.
kind of like we’re allowed to decide whether to do heroin or not…
It has been decriminalized in recent past, it’s not off the table.
In New York? Interesting.
But if you’re being facetious, that’s why I specified “that” addiction.
I mean, if they banned everything that was harmful and addictive, then nicotine and alcohol would be banned too. But clearly they don’t. Yet those are banned for children.
I think that should also be allowed, but only under medical supervision. Ideally, there should be a legal path to pretty much anything you want to do, with controls in place to protect the public from your choices.
Same reason “addictive liquids” are OK for adults: they sell
Are you kidding? There’s a whole “YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO” segment of the US population that cries until they die of dehydration every time the government says “regulation” three times in a mirror.
They are not. It is past time to call them on their psychological manipulation bullshit. Addictive feeds are also just the tip of the giant shitberg that corporate run social media has become.
Yes, but then eventually you’ll have to ban half the usual ads if applying the principle consistently, or it’ll be no good otherwise, cause they’ll manage to weasel out.
Social media are just what happens when a few gigantic non-transparent organizations get the usual Goebbels powers plus the ability to match people with content, people with people, people with groups as they see fit.
It’s both a legal and a technical problem. The legal part is about making this no-no. The technical part is by having truly decentralized asynchronous social media. Federation, like with ActivityPub, is insufficient, it has to be homogenous. I mean, I’d like it to use ActivityPub-connected servers as authentication providers and for contact directory, but not the rest.
EDIT: I think freenet.org , as in Locutus and not old Freenet we all love, is aimed at this exactly.
Because this is an excuse to KYC all users.