I can’t really say it in any more different ways. One last time.
Yes, of course Facebook wants to push unmoderated addictive content on all their users.
But yes, Facebook also loves putting out endless “user tools” so they can push the responsibility off of themselves for the same reason. These tools already exist. Tools are absolutely useless when you’re trying to protect at risk children or people in general…it’s like asking people to be their own doctor.
All social media needs to be regulated at a fundamental level, and that regulation must include each agent being responsible for the content their users post. Putting out more tools so users can block ads or control their kids will make things worse, as the companies continue the arms race for attention. The only people who benefit from tools are helicopter parents and the tech savvy.
No I get what you’re saying, but your understanding of the world as it exists is incorrect, and your values are for oppression and anti-freedom.
Your incorrect understanding of reality: the on-platform tools that exist currently on Facebook are useless. You are powerless through account settings to limit your exposure to content from strangers on your feed, much less your child’s, except by individually blocking accounts as you see them when logged into the account that you want to block from. Even Bluesky, which also has insufficient tools, is slightly better in this regard. But what few on-platform tools you’re offerd only exist to give you the illusion of control over your experience. Greater control is possible but not offered because it’s less profitable. It could be mandated through law.
Your anti-freedom values: making platforms responsible for user content will destroy them or force severe proactive censorship and real identity policies. None of that is conducive to a free and open society. The fediverse could not exist if servers could be held responsible for what users say or do. Most of the Internet couldn’t exist if one rogue or politically unpopular user could land the service they use in court by offending another.
Your last paragraph is complete nonsense. The way to when an arms race is to come in with bigger arms. That’s where the government comes in, not to force its own will but to restrain companies and empower people. The notion that giving people greater control of their experiences can harm them is insane.
Would have been nice if you’d read what I write, but okay.
What Facebook wants is mandatory age checks at the OS level so they can just call an API and avoid all responsibility within their own platform.
What Facebook doesn’t want is users being able to control their own experience of the platform.
I can’t really say it in any more different ways. One last time.
Yes, of course Facebook wants to push unmoderated addictive content on all their users.
But yes, Facebook also loves putting out endless “user tools” so they can push the responsibility off of themselves for the same reason. These tools already exist. Tools are absolutely useless when you’re trying to protect at risk children or people in general…it’s like asking people to be their own doctor.
All social media needs to be regulated at a fundamental level, and that regulation must include each agent being responsible for the content their users post. Putting out more tools so users can block ads or control their kids will make things worse, as the companies continue the arms race for attention. The only people who benefit from tools are helicopter parents and the tech savvy.
No I get what you’re saying, but your understanding of the world as it exists is incorrect, and your values are for oppression and anti-freedom.
Your incorrect understanding of reality: the on-platform tools that exist currently on Facebook are useless. You are powerless through account settings to limit your exposure to content from strangers on your feed, much less your child’s, except by individually blocking accounts as you see them when logged into the account that you want to block from. Even Bluesky, which also has insufficient tools, is slightly better in this regard. But what few on-platform tools you’re offerd only exist to give you the illusion of control over your experience. Greater control is possible but not offered because it’s less profitable. It could be mandated through law.
Your anti-freedom values: making platforms responsible for user content will destroy them or force severe proactive censorship and real identity policies. None of that is conducive to a free and open society. The fediverse could not exist if servers could be held responsible for what users say or do. Most of the Internet couldn’t exist if one rogue or politically unpopular user could land the service they use in court by offending another.
Your last paragraph is complete nonsense. The way to when an arms race is to come in with bigger arms. That’s where the government comes in, not to force its own will but to restrain companies and empower people. The notion that giving people greater control of their experiences can harm them is insane.