Sorry, but it’s rubbish.
Are you saying that all the people who were 16 and grew up without social media had no social connections? Didn’t form strong bonds with their peers?
Social media is absolutely terrible for kids. Social media absolutely destroyed social skills in teens.
I personally lived in a very backwater state, surrounded by racist conservatives, and was raised hardcore Catholic by extremely abusive guardians. I owe every single ounce of my rationality to the web and the ideas and people I encountered there.
Facebook, etc are definitely terrible for kids. But the wording of these laws is intentionally vague, in order for these kinds of laws to be used according to the whim of the incumbent, as a tool of oppression.
I hate to break it to you, but rest of the world is not US and have different socio-cultural dynamics.
Regardless. We should optimize the outcomes for the collective good, and not for the corner cases. Of course it has its cost.
Even the US is not anything like the childhood environment described by GP, for most children.
I think that's pretty obvious, no?
The entire point is that I got to grow up with a wide variety of opinions and ideas from people across the world.
I have good friends all over the world today thanks to the web. We have influenced and helped each other over the years. We depend on each other. That's not a corner case.
> I got to grow up with a wide variety of opinions and ideas from people across the world.
You got to grow up with the vocal minority on the internet, in otherwords the 4% of the worlds population which is most extreme in their views and most arrogant in how they express them.
That is entirely an assumption on your part, one which reveals your inherent biases. My experience was not at all as you describe.
You have no idea how I spent my time on the web overall just because I gave you a glimpse into a single aspect of my intersectional experience on the web.
Such a Narcissistic reply, there was no assumption about you on my part at all. I was refering to the fact that only 4% of the worlds population are vocal on the internet.
Anyone thinking they are being exposed to a wide range of people and personalities on the internet is very mistaken. Its a very narrow sliver of humanity that goes online and engages in online posting.
> You got to grow up with the vocal minority on the internet, in otherwords the 4% of the worlds population which is most extreme in their views and most arrogant in how they express them.
This is a de facto assumption. You assumed a situation which was not reality.
> 4% of the worlds population are vocal on the internet.
Conjecture, unsubstantiated percentage. Rooted in your own biased and demonstrably incomplete understanding of the internet.
> Anyone thinking they are being exposed to a wide range of people and personalities on the internet is very mistaken
I don't think you understand just how many people are on the internet. I get exposed to a wealth of different cultures and ideas, even moreso today.
Also, please refrain from devolving into insults and accusations of narcissism. Not only is that a textbook identity fallacy, but there is nothing narcissistic about simply pushing back against biased judgement.
> This is a de facto assumption. You assumed a situation which was not reality.
Nope, no assumptions there.
> Conjecture, unsubstantiated percentage. Rooted in your own biased and demonstrably incomplete understanding of the internet.
I'll give you this one, my percentage was out of date. The current percentage is estimated to be 10%.
> I don't think you understand just how many people are on the internet.
I dont think you understand how little are. 67.5% of the world currently have access to the internet, and the majority of that is intermittant and shareddevices in Africa and Asia. Thats many billions of people that do not even own a device with a web browser, let alone indulge in conversations with strangers on social media and forums.
> Also, please refrain from devolving into insults and accusations of narcissism.
There were no insults or accusations. I said your reply was Narcissistic, I did not say you were.
You keep reading what you want to in my posts to support your extremism and outrage. Please dont, nobody is accusing you of anything. You can calm down now!
Are you going to provide any citations?
> There were no insults or accusations. I said your reply was Narcissistic, I did not say you were.
Now you're just hiding behind pedantry.
> You can calm down now!
And now you're trying to act like I'm being emotional.
You're arguing disingenuously, more interested in trolling and escalating the negativity than finding common ground. When pressed to articulate your position, you turn to insults and deflection.
There is absolutely no reason to continue engaging with you.
Well that goes a long way to explaining your quite extreme views.
You're flirting with an identity fallacy here, but please, explain which part of my views are extreme.
>The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas.
Thats a pretty extreme view to any normal person who didnt grow up on the internet.
EDIT: please stop editing your posts after posting, it makes them most difficult to respond to properly.
You also need to make a case for why it's extreme. Simply labeling it as extreme is not enough. Why is it extreme?
No I dont, I am done feeding the trolls. Feel free to retort whatever makes you feel most superior.
You're doing a lot of projection, engaging in such negativity after willingly replying to one of my comments, and then acting like I'm the one trolling you.