Re:Meta Sued by States over Harmful Youth Marketing on Faceb...
by edgyquant on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @05:46PM
(#38006109)
> Your example is describing an externality, a cost imposed on a unwilling third party. Facebook is a platform that individuals can choose to avoid or restrict their children from using if they deem it harmful. These situations are not comparable.
Yeah just like alcohol and drugs, you can easily restrict your children from using them so companies should be free to sell to whomever. Good parents ensure their children aren’t doing this.
Re:Meta Sued by States over Harmful Youth Marketing on Faceb...
by olalonde on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @06:04PM
(#38006306)
Talking from personal experience growing up, I would generally agree. The prohibition from selling alcohol/cigarettes to minors was pretty ineffective. The only effective prevention was having stricter parents and facing consequences. That said, I wouldn't say Facebook is at all comparable to alcohol or drugs...
Re:Meta Sued by States over Harmful Youth Marketing on Faceb...
by zeroonetwothree on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @08:23PM
(#38007609)
The prohibition on selling alcohol and drugs has clearly had no effect on their availability. So I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.
Your example is describing an externality, a cost imposed on a unwilling third party. Facebook is a platform that individuals can choose to avoid or restrict their children from using if they deem it harmful. These situations are not comparable.
> no business has a right to exist independently from its standing in the system of laws and the health of its users - especially children.
I disagree. Businesses and websites ought to have a right to exist as long as they do not inflict harm on third parties and their users participate willingly. Individuals ought to be free to make decisions regarding their own health and that of their children. If we were to consider otherwise, can you fathom the sheer volume of things we'd need to prohibit?