Comment on For All That Is Good About Humankind, Ban Smartphones
tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days agoWe land on somewhat different sides of the neoliberal fence, I think.
The substances sugar, alcohol, tobacco, sure. Potentially harmful but not malicious. As long as we’re talking about adults I mostly agree (although there are many regulations around them in all parts of the world. Smoking in public places, drinking when operating machinery and so on.) A company trying to manipulate people with ads to consume more of these substances: different story altogether since now there’s at the very least neglect of societal responsibility involved- can and should be regulated. I can’t think of a single reason why ads for alcohol should be allowed, for example. Here in a middle European country advertising spirits or nicotine products is illegal, while ads for beer/wine are legal under certain conditions. Slot machines and similar gambling are illegal while casino games like Roulette and Black Jack are very strictly regulated but legal. What’s the situation in your corner of the world and what’s your take on it?
What to regulate and to which extent is not trivial of course, but especially when it comes to social media we’re so far removed from “too much regulation” that I don’t think it’s worth going into it here. Banning Smartphones is obviously not the answer either way.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I’m in the US, we have advertising for everything. I haven’t thought about this to be honest. Because advertising medicine feels wrong to me, but at the same time I don’t have much of an issue with advertising alcohol or even tobacco. I think I would allow them with the caveat that for every dollar invested in their advertising the companies also have to invest in a fund for advertising responsible drinking etc. makes it expensive to advertise, but not illegal nor difficult.
I’m for banning or regulating the alteration of products in such a way that they become more addictive than they would naturally be, but in terms of things themselves I don’t think anything being illegal or heavily regulated to the point it is almost illegal solves any issues. So for example smoking being prohibited in public spaces makes sense because you are forcing others to smoke with you; but who exactly is harmed by gambling except the one gambling? Will they stop gambling if it is illegal? Probably not. So for me the historical evidence tells me that prohibiting the supply of anything while the demand exists simply causes black markets to pop up, which cause infinitely more issues than the thing itself being legal. So I’m pretty much against making any of these things illegal.
Limit the age to which the thing is accessible and put some taxes on it that fund awareness of addiction and programs to help people recover from addiction.
In terms of social media I think the regulation should be that by default the algorithm is simply “chronological “ ie it shows you everything posted by everyone you follow in the order they posted it. Then there can be a discovery or suggestion algorithm as a separate feed but it should be fully open so that anyone with the technical know how can pin point exactly what signals it is using to suggest content. I think that would go a long way.
tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 21 hours ago
We found more common ground and more things that separate us, too.
I agree with your idea of regulating social media and I’d add that platforms should be mandated to open their walled gardens by implementing open protocols and force them to play nice with other platforms (said the guy on Lemmy.)
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the notion that an addiction only hurts the addict. I’d argue that’s never the case. On the contrary, alcoholism or gambling can drag whole families or more into poverty. On top of the microcosm impact, albeit more of a European problem, I suppose (although I wouldn’t want it any other way), substance-related addictions are a huge cost factor on our social health system, costing the public hand (us, me) huge sums and taking up ever scarcer hospital beds and treatment slots. Here comes my main point: History (especially yours with the prohibition period) proves that outlawing substances doesn’t work, and neither am I for it. But our minds are vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, and advertisement is utilising that fact by e.g., creating associations between drinking or smoking and sexual desirability. This is well known and it works too, or it wouldn’t be the enormous industry it is. Now then, why should we allow the manipulation of our desires for something that is ultimately bad for EVERY part of society except the leeches directly profiteering from it? (I’m not even talking about the fact that children’s minds are even more susceptible to this, but are for the most part just as exposed to the same stimuli our adult ones are. One of the restrictions for wine/beer ads here in my country, by the way: Not on daytime TV. Somewhat sensible at least.)
I wonder why you draw the line at medicine, by the way. What’s the difference there for you?