For All That Is Good About Humankind, Ban Smartphones
Technology
89
Beiträge
51
Kommentatoren
165
Aufrufe
-
Ok buddy Marcus Aurelius
I'm just making commentary bud. Multiple times in the city I've seen people nearly get hit by busses because they cross the street nose deep in their phone without looking up. Some people can't come unglued for 10 seconds to look both ways before crossing a busy roadway in a bus plaza, it's kind of crazy!
-
If USA banned guns, they might have a few less shootings.
Counting the civil war or no?
-
Hey David, can you guess how many people are reading your article from a smartphone? Convenient, isn't it.
Want to complain about smartphones? Write a book... or something that can be published on fucking paper.
Bad take.
Journalists tell themselves they can make their ends meet by publishing a book pretty frequently.
Turns out that's rarely true. He seems to be mainly a podcaster though? Those lines can get blurry.
Also, the Jacobin is a magazine that still sells a printed version...
-
There is no other economic system.
If lemmy.ml could read this, they'd be very upset.
No, they'd just laugh at the morons
-
Greed isn't limited to any one economic system, I fear.
Seems more like a power thing but I guess that's greed too
-
Why is the left so intent on becoming Luddites? What the fuck is this timeline?
I don't think it's "the left" as a whole but the literal Luddites would definitely have been considered part of it.
There's just going to be some overlap in the anti-capitalist Venn diagram on these issues.
-
Counting the civil war or no?
Do counts with and without the civil war.
-
Bad take.
Journalists tell themselves they can make their ends meet by publishing a book pretty frequently.
Turns out that's rarely true. He seems to be mainly a podcaster though? Those lines can get blurry.
Also, the Jacobin is a magazine that still sells a printed version...
So, can you guess which percentage of people prefer using an smartphone to read these kind of anti smartphone articles? Do you see the issue? The irony?
This is just trash ragebait dude.
-
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.
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?
Edit: Thanks for the respectful discussion, by the way. I appreciate it.
-
If USA banned guns, they might have a few less shootings.
This is obviously true in the strictest sense, but I don’t think it’s going to have the desired effect you want in the long run. How’s the War on Drugs working out? It’s been going for 54 years, so I assume it’s about wrapped up now, drugs aren’t an issue, black market is choked out, and society is better off.
Firearms restrictions will be enforced unequally; it will be used as a pretense to further persecute minorities. Those with money will simply hire private security contractors who can jump through the legal hoops to get whatever they want. The majority of shootings in the US are related to drugs and other illegal activities that have logistics channels to get guns just as easily as drugs or exploited people. Guns are durable and the demand exists. They’re not going anywhere.
The gun problem in the US is not the cause of our woes, it is the symptom. “Make X illegal” is the laziest form of government and it’s just granting them more power which will be abused eventually.
-
This is obviously true in the strictest sense, but I don’t think it’s going to have the desired effect you want in the long run. How’s the War on Drugs working out? It’s been going for 54 years, so I assume it’s about wrapped up now, drugs aren’t an issue, black market is choked out, and society is better off.
Firearms restrictions will be enforced unequally; it will be used as a pretense to further persecute minorities. Those with money will simply hire private security contractors who can jump through the legal hoops to get whatever they want. The majority of shootings in the US are related to drugs and other illegal activities that have logistics channels to get guns just as easily as drugs or exploited people. Guns are durable and the demand exists. They’re not going anywhere.
The gun problem in the US is not the cause of our woes, it is the symptom. “Make X illegal” is the laziest form of government and it’s just granting them more power which will be abused eventually.
Appreciated, but do you think the authorities want to win the war on drugs?
