Honestly, this is the question people should be asking in response. I totally get the gut reaction against censorship, but I don’t think anyone would agree that Facebook, Xitter, etm. are innocent, neutral parties in all of this.
Part of the issue (as the article points out) is that those companies have been allowed to essentially craft people’s internal narrative, often amplifying our worst impulses and inclinations—all in service of making the black line go up for investors.
So is banning social media for teens the correct path forward? Maybe in the short term, but until we direct the governance to the companies creating the problems in the first place, we’re almost certainly going to have this conversation again in the future.
The problem with that analogy is that eggs are what they are. Chickens and farmers aren’t choosing to make eggs with certain levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol.
Meanwhile social media is what the various companies make of it. Social media itself isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s that the companies that wield it have malicious intent (read: capitalism), and humanity in general is clearly too stupid to control itself such that we can consume it in a healthy way.
The punishment shouldn’t fall upon the consumers, it should fall upon the manufacturers who have both the power to make a positive change and the knowledge that their current actions are detrimental.
I hear what you are saying. But as a parent myself I let my kid get familiar with tech. I think it’s far easier to know it early and keep going with it. So he watches dumb shorts on YouTube. Or is on discord to game with his friends. But he doesn’t do it at school and when it’s time to put the phone away he does. I don’t think he’s addicted to it. I don’t think it’s that harmful. Anymore than any other thing.
What leads me to the egg comparison is that it’s back and forth on if it’s good or bad. Depending on who is measuring or what they are measuring.
What if it’s not?? 🤔
Honestly, this is the question people should be asking in response. I totally get the gut reaction against censorship, but I don’t think anyone would agree that Facebook, Xitter, etm. are innocent, neutral parties in all of this.
Part of the issue (as the article points out) is that those companies have been allowed to essentially craft people’s internal narrative, often amplifying our worst impulses and inclinations—all in service of making the black line go up for investors.
So is banning social media for teens the correct path forward? Maybe in the short term, but until we direct the governance to the companies creating the problems in the first place, we’re almost certainly going to have this conversation again in the future.
Part of parenting is censoring the world for your child’s developing brain.
I feel like we are talking about cholesterol in eggs again.
The problem with that analogy is that eggs are what they are. Chickens and farmers aren’t choosing to make eggs with certain levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol.
Meanwhile social media is what the various companies make of it. Social media itself isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s that the companies that wield it have malicious intent (read: capitalism), and humanity in general is clearly too stupid to control itself such that we can consume it in a healthy way.
The punishment shouldn’t fall upon the consumers, it should fall upon the manufacturers who have both the power to make a positive change and the knowledge that their current actions are detrimental.
I hear what you are saying. But as a parent myself I let my kid get familiar with tech. I think it’s far easier to know it early and keep going with it. So he watches dumb shorts on YouTube. Or is on discord to game with his friends. But he doesn’t do it at school and when it’s time to put the phone away he does. I don’t think he’s addicted to it. I don’t think it’s that harmful. Anymore than any other thing.
What leads me to the egg comparison is that it’s back and forth on if it’s good or bad. Depending on who is measuring or what they are measuring.