this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
305 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
16 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

What an absurd, ignorant notion. Of course social media has a negative impact on developing minds, but forcing sites to display warnings would have zero positive impact. Browser extensions would immediately pop up to hide those warnings, and if anything, the presence of such warnings would increase kids' use of social media, since the danger is something even adults had a hard time understanding and kids love to rebel against oppressive systems. The warnings would turn into memes.

The only answers to this problem are to break up and ban social media companies (not possible) or get parents to actually be parents and teach their kids about the pitfalls of social media.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's pr. Same usual political dumb shit that doesn't do anything but make a dipshit look good to dumbass.

The benefit of the doubt is that they might mean well but they probably don't.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

get parents to actually be parents and teach their kids about the pitfalls of social media

Also not possible

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Exactly - such labels would be ignored even more than the ones on cigarettes are, especially by the addicts. And it's so much easier to completely hide them too - adblockers already hide a lot of content people don't want to see, this would just become another line in the filter list so fast...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Except many advertisers don't want to be associated with damaging things. So this has an impact on advertising revenue for social media companies and they would absolutely view this as a blow to their public image.

We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And right here is why I will never be on board with this idea. You don't want to make people better at using the tech or companies to do a better job with it, you want your revenge on them. It isn't about being greater it is about constraining success.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's really not about revenge. It's about taking back power from corporations and giving it to the people. Right now, political power is with the highest bidder and these companies know it.

They are using the money from advertising to lobby and buy politicians, which is what stops us from having sensible regulations for social media. Taking away that revenue stream inhibits their ability to do this, so it's a win for the people

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And now you are backtracking. You didn't say that in your previous comment what you did argue for was finding ways to hurt social media companies. Not able to support your revenge viewpoint you make it more diplomatic.

You don't like Meta? Ok, I don't care or blame you. No one has to like anything. But you can stop pretending that you suddenly care about people hurt by that company when you post a screed about your revenge fantasies.

As I said, it isn't about making things better it is about hurting something you don't personally like.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets

That was in my original comment. I was clearly making the point that the aim is to legislate against harmful practices. I don't think most people need it spelled out for them why that is, or why we can't do it right away but I've done my best to be patient in explaining it to you.

If you want to take a weird stance that I'm being mean to corporations that's up to you, but I didn't say anything vengeful let alone posted a 'screed'

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Not one word about helping people. Not a single word

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Again... banning the worst practices of social media is to help people. I think this is a comprehension issue at this point.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Continue to lie

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah this is basically the older generation vs video games, the one before that against movies, etc, etc...

As people age they resent the world changing, they assume everything different is bad because it's easier to accept than the thought of aging into irrelevance.

Lemmy is full of people knee-jerk hating anything new; social media, ai, and every new thing younger generations do. It's dumb but people are often so.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Hate aging. I get to see the worst shitty behaviors they elderly did when I was a kid being imitated unironically by the new crop of elderly. No self-awareness and no ability to learn. It's depressing, like watching the same personal mistakes being repeated forever.

Right @[email protected] ? You remember being a kid and that old dude you knew screaming about skateboarding, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think we need regulation, that doesn't make me a person who irrationally hates children skateboarding.

Also skateboarding hasn't led to and been complicit in genocide on two continents, but social media has in Asia and Africa. If it had, maybe you'd see people writing op-eds about that instead of social media companies that value profits more than human life

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am shocked that no genocides existed before Facebook! And for someone who now claims they want regulation I find it interesting that you wrote a screaming rant about wanting to break them up. Were you lying then or lying now?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Possibly the most obtuse person I've encountered on Lemmy

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Sorry, you should ask for your money back grandpa.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah it's funny because they give themselves away so easily by refusing to admit positive social and personal effects and magnifying absurd arhuments against.

Like the other reply I always see them push the genocide ones, of course if you get into details they freak out because the accusation is kinda stupid - lemmy by design couldn't do the thing they say Facebook should to have stopped the genocide so if you believe it's valid and use lemmy you'd be being super hypocritical - but of course they don't care, they're reaching for criticism not actually trying to understand it.

It's kinda scary really how little people care about reality, it's the same thing on Facebook with the boomer conspiracy stuf, phones bad, kids not manly, and all that stuff. They're not looking for truth or trying to make the world better, they're trying to find excuses to feel superior.