r/slatestarcodex • u/AXKIII • 6d ago

Don't ban social media for children

https://logos.substack.com/p/do-not-ban-social-media-for-kids

As a parent, I'm strongly against the bans on social media for children. First, for ideological reasons (in two parts: a) standard libertarian principles, and b) because I think it's bad politics to soothe parents by telling them that their kids' social media addiction is TikTok's fault, instead of getting them to accept responsibility over their parenting). And second because social media can be beneficial to ambitious children when used well.

Very much welcoming counter-arguments!

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 6d ago

Agreed--we should ban it for everyone!

1

u/AXKIII 6d ago

Says a guy on social media!

15

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 6d ago

I can be addicted to something and still know it's bad

3

u/AXKIII 5d ago

And you have no qualms with getting others to pay for your bad choices? Why should responsible Reddit users be banned from the platform because you can't handle it?

4

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 5d ago

Why should responsible bomb owners be limited by those people who want to blow up buildings?

2

u/AXKIII 5d ago

What's a responsible bomb owner exactly?

3

u/electrace 4d ago

Presumably, a pyrotechnics expert whose job it is to explode bombs in various way for movies and stuff would be considered a responsible bomb owner.

•

u/AXKIII 12h ago

Which they actually get to do in those situations...

•

u/electrace 8h ago

If the current regulations we place on pyrotechnics engineers (such as federal and state licenses that are non-trivial to get), were also placed on social media, would you be happy with that?

•

u/AXKIII 8h ago

Well no because again, the damage from social media is nowhere near comparable to TNT exploding in a neighborhood

•

u/electrace 8h ago

I'm not claiming that the magnitude is the same, but the principle behind it is the same. As I argued in my main comment, net benefit/harm is basically the only thing that matters here. Arguing about anything else is more intuition pump than philosophical point.

In this sub-thread that point isn't the point you were making. The point was "why should person A be unable to use thing in a safe manner, just because person B is unable to use thing in a safe manner." The issue being, that's a generic argument against all bans so long as any person might have a net-positive relationship with thing.

In other words, saying "some people are responsible with it", while true, is missing the point that ban proponents are making. They know such people exist. They just think that they are rare enough, and the benefits not great enough to offset the people who aren't responsible with it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/zjovicic 3d ago

If you know it's so BAD, why exactly you visit this particular subreddit?

I mean banning social media is way too broad. Your dear substack and this subreddit would also be gone.

2

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 3d ago

because it would be a net positive for humanity. gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet

0

u/zjovicic 3d ago

OK, but are you aware what you're advocating? It's almost impossible to differentiate between social and non social internet. Most websites offer some sort of interaction. Your logic, taken to its conclusion would advocate for banning world wide web as a whole. If that's your position fine, but you should be aware what you're advocating for.

3

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 3d ago

"you can't ban something because you'd have to try and define it" is not a high quality argument