Sure, but is that better or worse than your parents becoming cult-like and being harmed psychologically? Propaganda is a real thing, these websites and TV channels spend a lot of time and money trying to manipulate their users, I don't think it's morally wrong to fight back against that.

It's the same as what many HNers say about TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, etc, except it's now applied to those that are older who don't necessarily use those platforms but instead use others. If one doesn't like the former, they also should not logically like the latter either, they're two sides of the same coin.

If they don't care enough to undo what you did, is it really hurting them?

Would you say the same if they were shooting heroin?

> If they don't care enough to undo what you did, is it really hurting them?

I’m not really sure ignorance of (to?) a solution makes this suddenly a morally justifiable action.

I don’t know how to change a tire. I’d still be justifiably upset if someone just removed one while I was at dinner lol

Consider another example, if you were out drinking and someone took your keys and refused to give them back so you could drive home while intoxicated, I'd consider that morally justifiable.

While there’s perhaps a “clear and present danger” distinction, I think this analogy is a good one because we are talking about similar interventions: nonviolent, easily overcome. No one’s gonna die from taking a cab home or missing out on the latest conspiracy theory.

No one is going to die if I take their phone away from them once a day and monitor everybody who calls and texts them. I don’t think that’s really a good bar.

That’s a little different as I am under the influence of a known, measurable substance with known, measurable impairments it induces. I basically can’t exercise ANY judgment. Not just driving.

Yes I understand that someone indoctrinated/obsessed with conspiracy theories can quite literally not be able to get out of that orbit without external intervention, but it’s harder to quantify and it’s harder to draw the line on where and when it’s appropriate to declare someone unfit to set their own media consumption habits.

We’d also have to clearly define what does and doesn’t contribute to the problem, which would vary from person to person. That is definitely not a straightforward delineation. Especially when the person in question doesn’t agree at all.

You can think of it as an application of the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Would you want someone to do this for you if they found you in a similar situation?

If so, then you know what you need to do.

> Would you want someone to do this for you if they found you in a similar situation?

I mean this assumes I’m absolutely right AND it’s my right to unilaterally cut off my family from certain media without their consent. I feel like in the end I’m correct but not in the right.

The big thing is not to cut them off - that's likely part of it - but to replace the problematic habit.

Propaganda thrives on engagement. Engagement must be replaced with something equally stimulating.

But I am cutting them off. The content is blocked. I am denying them access.