Comment by lm28469
4 days ago
This is the level 0 of reasoning about these topics...
We live in organised societies, nobody is forcing you to do crack but people doing crack will definitely lower the experience of everyone they interact with (and more given the burden on shared goods like healthcare, infrastructures, &c.), that's why we collectively decided that crack shouldn't be sold to 13 years old kids.
Now of course this is very flawed and we'll always have things slipping through the cracks (alcohol, tobacco, junk food, &c.), but unless you want to live in a mad max type of world you have to accept some level of regulation, and that level of regulation, in a working society, should be determined through politics
If tiktok is crack, HN is honey. One becomes problematic much quicker than the other, when you see a kid spending 5 hours a day on HN hit me up
This is not an actual argument because you can make it about anything.
Like to ski? Your injuries have a societal cost.
Like to cook? Your inefficient use of energy costs society.
If you can use an argument for anything it’s not a very convincing argument.
Cool, you can use the argument I was replying to for everything too. I guess we're back to square one then.
If you think skiing and cooking have as much of a negative impact as social media as on entire generation of kids I doubt we'll find common ground to go further, usually it requires a bit of good faith
>This is not an actual argument because you can make it about anything.
>Like to ski? Your injuries have a societal cost.
>Like to cook? Your inefficient use of energy costs society.
This assumes that fairly standard activities are imposing the societal cost you are attributing to them. For most individuals who perform these activities, they are not producing an outsized societal cost, which is the delineation the parent comment was making. The parent comment used an example of something that from their point of view has a negative societal cost in the base case. Your examples are not similar as they are not referring to the base case of simply performing the activities, but only to the relatively uncommon tail end outcomes.
yeah, that makes sense. Everything has a cost, TANSTAFL.
This is the second philopsiphical point of economics. Everything is a choice between costs.
Im curious how else you would put it?
Won't someone think of the Children!!!?
Social media is just the demon of the day. In the 80s it was that damn rock music ruining our kids and in the 90s it was violent video games and rap.
Every generation has their "this thing is corrupting the youth" moment.
I don't recall violent video games and rap music influencing elections.
I wish it had - I’d vote for the person fighting for my right to party
The impact stated is wildly outsized. I read a microsoft report regarding this that was heavily touted and one of the "prime" examples given was a 1M view Twitter video.
[dead]
Yeah sure, Socrates was worried about books too... now if you can't see the difference between rock music and kids spending 5+ hours a day doomscrolling I think we'll have a hard time discussing anything. Feel free to share the studies showing the negative effects of books and rock music on kids by the way, because there are plenty of these when it comes to social media, especially the doomscrolling type.
Following your logic everything new has to be desirable, that's a tough position to defend imho. Just because new trends were incorrectly criticised in the past doesn't mean every new trend is good until the heat death of the universe, logic 101
> and kids spending 5+ hours a day doomscrolling
Let's stop pretending adults do not do it too.
1 reply →
[dead]