RE: Banned for sixteen years — WeAreAliveAndSocial

This is definitely the fine line situation. On the one hand it’s imperative that parents keep their kids off social media for as long as possible for so many mental and physiological reasons. At the same time gubment doesn’t belong putting itself more into our lives than it needs to be.

This is where it absolutely gets murky. I was listening to a podcast the other day, as I often do, and one guy mentioned something that makes total sense and is nefarious. These companies fund both sides of the argument because it fuels division. They find a way to pull the strings of those on the progressive side of an issue to rile them up, and do the same for conservatives. It ends up in stalemates but puts attention on certain issues while they skirt things under the radar elsewhere which is better for them.

I don’t know where this issue may lie in particular but it lines up with that I think. For someone like Elon it could go like this:
If it doesn’t pass, he continued to expose younger audiences to his platforms he uses to harvest data and expose them to dopamine-addictive technology. This is a win in the short term.

If it does pass it inserts government into more aspects of our personal lives than it did before and has no business doing but this is an erosion process. Eventually it can insert itself in other ways again in the future and ways he can financially profit off of. This is the long term mindset.

I am of the mindset that it’s the parents job to control this issue with the kids. We know our families the best and what works. This empowers us to continue to make decisions for ourselves instead of outsourcing it to others for us. This is the nanny state argument, where we contribute to the nanny state by letting them do it for us. There is a point where the kids can have these things in a controlled manner to start to learn good habits with it but too early gets them addicted.

We haven’t reached rhe social media age with my son but we are approaching the phone days. I am vehemently against both of them but it’s also about compromise. I will compromise in the future for a flip phone that only does calls and texts but will not allow a smart phone for as long as possible.

Jack Kruse talks about these things quite well - how technology is destroying the minds of the generations of young kids and we are headed for a dark place if we don’t turn the ship. AI feeds into that nicely by eliminating their ability to think for themselves.

Dark and provocative thoughts for sure.

Sort:

Trending

[-]

galenkp 2 months ago

These companies fund both sides of the argument because it fuels division

Yep, that's what makes them so reprehensible...it's insidious.

I also agree with you that it's the parents job but most are so incapable (clueless) that it's not occurring...probably because many parents now grew up the same way they are raising their kid which is probably what has prompted the government's plan.

we are approaching the phone days

Yeah, and the kid is what...8?

There's a lot of problems but excuses are made to justify the behaviours and so it perpetuates.

0.00 ALIVE

cmplxty 2 months ago

Yeah he is, it's not imminent but my wife has tossed the idea around a time or two. I vehemently opposed it and won the skirmish for now and hope to keep it at bay until he's about 13 or so. There are a lot of ways in which it's important he grows up without those things as I know you're aware.

Thankfully there is a sizable group of parents who are pushing back and highly opposed to kids with phones and social media so it's a growing trend for families to do this. If all goes well we can keep part of that group for many more years but it's important to get prepared for these things now so we don't get blind sided.