← Back to context

Comment by sigmar

5 days ago

[flagged]

Consuming social media doesn't have an inescapable negative impact on other people, unlike burning leaded fuel. In the same way that eating junk food doesn't. Should we ban junk food? What else do you want to ban from others just because it has a risk profile you personally don't feel comfortable with?

  • > Consuming social media doesn't have an inescapable negative impact on other people

    You don't think large portions an entire generation(s) getting cooked by social media doesn't have negative externalities that impact society as a whole?

    • I don't think anybody has the moral authority to regulate such second-order effects.

      Should unhealthy food be banned because of the second-order effects of obesity? What about mandatory church / religious service? After all, I judge that atheism has negative second-order effects on the world. Where would I get this moral authority from?

      2 replies →

I wonder where folks like this came from, and at what point did people who associate themselves with hacker culture decide that censorship is great.

The OG hackers thought of censorship as network damage that needed to be routed around.

People who support censorship always think of themselves as smarter than the rest. Dunning-Krueger however would suggest something different.

  • I posted above that social media related issues are a problem, and then a bunch of posts accused me of wanting to make it illegal. I never suggested that and I actually don't support censorship, I just wish some people I know didn't spend so much of their time bummed out about social media.