this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
319 points (94.7% liked)
Technology
59159 readers
2449 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I think it’s bad because of how addictive it is
I had it for two days and I spent over 36 hours on the app.
Im sure some people are less affected by it than I was, but from my perspective, it’s too dangerous to let live.
Also I like the idea of getting rid of dangerous things and I don’t believe in free speech absolutism; I think we take that idea too far
So that justifies the federal government stepping in to save you from yourself? Should we have a War on Algorithms next? War on drugs has been going swimmingly.
Yes I think we should
It’s not just me, there are tons of people who are susceptible to schemes like social media etc. it’s why we don’t let kids smoke and they shouldn’t vape nicotine either. It’s why we regulate gambling, and why we should regulate sugary drinks too.
We didn’t evolve for a world with instant satisfaction, and we can’t cope with it.
To be clear, we don't ban children from consuming these products. We ban the sale of nicotine products to children. By anyone. The federal government didn't come in and ban Marlboro.
Regulations creating rules of behavior that apply to all actors. Not just making a law saying people aren't allowed inside the Bellagio.
The difference is super important. Laws need to be applied equally.
I can't disagree with an opinion like that coupled with an anecdote like that.
I disagree that it's the federal government who should be stepping in to limit screen time though.
In fact, tiktok is the only app I've seen that has a "why don't you go touch grass" timer, so in that regard, it's got less nefarious design patterns than, say, Facebook.
I don't think I understand what you mean by dangerous in this context, honestly. When I think danger, I think of bodily harm. What does your definition of dangerous entail when it comes to social media apps that physically can't cause harm? Is my understanding of danger too simplistic?