53
Two States Can Now Restrict Social Media Access—Here’s What To Do Next (www.eff.org)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

An appeals court has allowed Florida and Georgia to start enforcing online age gates. Some young people will lose accounts, and everyone faces new privacy risks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Good riddance, social media should not be for kids anyways, especially not with pedos in the government abusing everything

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    Social media can put kids at risk when not used responsibly, sure, but it can also be a lifeline for LGBTQ+ kids who have no peer support in their communities.

    Which is the ACTUAL reasons why Florida and Georgia want to block access: they want all LGBTQ+ people, especially children, to be isolated and invisible so they'll either conform to conservative cishet gender roles and sexuality or commit suicide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    I understand your argument and fully support LGBTQ+ but I still think social media is a net negative for society.

    The suicides by kids because of social media, the rampant misinformation for kids and adults on almost all issues, the algorithm controlling content, increased rates of depression, suicide, narcissism, eating disorders and loneliness... The list can go on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    That's the abuse of it by corrupted fucksticks, not the underlying tech itself. Let's keep the debate clean.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    I don't understand. How was my "debate" unclean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Muddying the topic by conflating the subject is not accurate nor honest.

    Effectively, you're blaming the hammer for the actions of the carpenter.

    (Not that any of those subhuman "leaders" would ever use a hammer, much less could, ofc.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    I think you are trying to use keywords and things you have heard without knowing their meaning to support your "debate."

    I did not muddy or conflate the topic.

    I'll rehash it for you. The topic is that social media has been banned in a couple states. The effect is that kids cannot use social media.

    The comment that I originally replied to absolves all the bad social media has done so that a few may be helped. You supported this by saying "That’s the abuse of it by corrupted fucksticks, not the underlying tech itself."

    First off, the underlying tech is the problem.

    Second issue is that it's the same argument for the death penalty. To paraphrase, it's okay if we kill a couple innocent people if most are guilty. Inversely, it's okay that society is negatively effected if we can save a few LGBTQ+.

    To clarify again I support LGBTQ+ but social media is bad for society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Ah, yes. Doubling down in self-righteousness. That always works. 🙄

    "Social media" isn't bad. The ones that put themselves in charge of it are. There was a time before all this bullshit that "social media" was one of the key methods to build community among the downtrodden, displaced, and otherwise discarded people among us.

    Again, you're letting your feelings guide your opinions and shellac them with academic frippery while you still blind yourself to the simple fact: you're conflating the tech with those responsible for promoting its use in this disgusting, indefensible way.

    A for effort, but no.

    Oh, and bonus point for the ad hominem, kiddo. Really underlines your stainless assertion. 🤣🖕🏼

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    No self righteousness here. How did you even get that from my comment? Where did I insinuate anything that made you think I was higher than anyone else?

    Again, you’re letting your feelings guide your opinions and shellac them with academic frippery while you still blind yourself to the simple fact: you’re conflating the tech with those responsible for promoting its use in this disgusting, indefensible way.

    Where did my feelings show? I expressed an opinion thats it. You took offense and replied with hostility and insults.

    You call me kiddo. I was here before myspace. I was here before AOL. I was a member of facebook when it was invite only. I'm a programmer by trade. I helped build the algorithms that you claim help your cause. I have seen first hand how they work. They don't help you. I try to make amends for my work by educating people but some, like you, have fallen victim to the algorithms. I feel pity for you.

    Feel free to check my history here. Its clear that I know what I'm talking about with regards to computer science.

    You are mistaken in your argument and your attacks on me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    So social media addiction is corrupt? That's surely not what you mean, but it comes off like that.

    Lemmy doesn't do the corrupt shit that private platforms pull, but I'm still addicted. Been on here all day because I'm too tired to do much else, but anything would probably be better for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent