As an adult, who despises all those apps, I don't want to grant government the power to make that decision for me.

An an adult, do you also believe seat belt laws are a bad thing?

This argument is lacking nuance. Just because there are some instances of paternalism one is prepared to accept, doesn't mean that every possible paternalist policy is always okay. Being in favour of some instances but not all, is not a logical inconsistency. We can talk about each instance on a case by case basis.

personally yes, that kind of choice should belong to the individual not the government. besides that though the laws are nonsensical why is a seatbelt required in a car not not in a bus, why are motorcycles even allowed at all?

This argument falls apart for countries with socialized healthcare.

As long as all people are paying for your dumb decisions, it is reasonable to expect the government to reduce the frequency of dumb decisions by adequate means.

I notice that these sorts of justifications for increased paternalism as a consequence of socialized services come up in public discourse all the time but never seems to be mentioned by advocates when proposing these socialized systems. It should be mentioned up front as a significant cost as part of the package, it comes with strings attached like the government telling you how to live your life. Interesting that people don't seem to want to mention that up front.

I support socialized medicine and I completely agree with you, we should be honest about the fact that it requires some level of regulatory coercion to work well.

Enforcing a healthy diet and exercise would have a vastly larger impact than any seatbelt laws in terms of reducing health care costs. Seatbelts and smoking always seem to be about as far as the advocates are willing to go though.

Yes, I do. Its just another way that cops can pull you over for bullshit charges and revenue enhancement.

I remember in my state, it was initially only a citation that couldnt be pulled over on. Then they flipped that and started pulling over for it. Why? Pure fucking money grab.

Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

> Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

Except who pays for your million-dollar reconstructive surgery and rehab? I don't suppose you will cover that out of pocket to avoid burdening your fellow insurance payers with your reckless behavior?

This cannot be a genuine take from a real person.

>Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

Physics says otherwise. In a collision you don't decide where you body is yeeted and your skull could end inside the skull of a passenger using his seatbelt. Don't be a moron. https://youtube.com/shorts/n2yLMGA_YSA?si=AlvRgfpb-PJxGCBw

Is this satire?

Is school busses without seatbelts satire?

Are motorcycles without seatbelts or harnesses satire?

All im saying is that an adult should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt or not in their own vehicle. And also, shouldnt get fined for choosing to not wear one.

BTW, i wear one when i drive or am a passenger. And if im driving, i ask everyone to wear one.

> All im saying is that an adult should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt or not in their own vehicle.

Millions of deaths and injuries avoided as a result of seatbelts obligatory in many countries around the world do not share your world view.

https://unece.org/sustainable-development/news/unece-celebra...

So, you dont care about children on schoolbusses? None of them have seatbelts.

And motorcycles are explicitly allowed, and have no restraints or harnesses. Mopeds, same. Scooters, same. Bicycles, same.

Adults *should* have the right to do risky behaviors that increases the risk of bodily injury. But no matter the link you put forth, doesnt explain why fucking schoolbusses that transport years 6-18 dont have seatbelts.

You seem like a very angry individual based on how you respond to very normal dialogue here. I suggest therapy.

Secondly, seatbelts are not just about you, genius. If you are thrown from a car you could hit something or someone else, endangering others. Thus, seatbelts are not only for your safety, but for others as well.

Please take a few breaths and go outside.

Seatbelt laws have very limited impact outside vehicle safety. Nor does it open a slippery slope that leads to buses and trains and elevators and dining chairs and beds getting their own seatbelts.

Regulation on speech threatens the basis of democracy. The fact that the countries pushing them most successfully (UK, Australia) are also the ones with serious freedom of speech problems compared to their Western peers should also tell you that no, they will not stop at throwing you in jail for memes on twitter.

But speech is not the same as design you're conflating two things and making it a non sequitur.

Yes. And I always wear my seat belt.

You might have the self-awareness and impulse control to stop yourself from getting addicted to these apps, but the majority of the world's population does not.

These giant companies pour millions upon millions of dollars into engineering their services to be as "engaging" (read: addictive) as possible with the specific goal of making users spend more time on them.

Against that, the average person has no chance. The power balance is hugely uneven.

A responsible government which actually cares for its people has a duty to protect them from abuse like that.

> I don't want to grant government the power to make that decision for me.

The alternative is letting multi-trillion dollar companies make those decisions for you, which they do with the explicit intent to manipulate you AND to push the politics of the currently sitting government of the United States.

Meta has repeatedly censored LGBT content, with no warning or stated policy change, since the government changed. All without the formal legislative process. Good chance the Trump admin didn't even ask for this, Meta just did it pre-emptively to suck up to them.

Opposing some basic restrictions on addictive and exploitative features and the requirement to offer users a standard reverse-chronological-followed feed without "The Algorithm", does not make you an Anti-Government Free Thinker. You're the exact kind of "sheep" Zuckerberg & the Trump administration want you to be.

If we afford the same protections to adults, we don't need age verification either. Just a thought.

On the radio I heard a reporter talking about things China does during school exams. Apparently all schools have exams at the same time and during that period, social media shuts down at night. I forget the exact hours (10pm - 6am maybe). I'm starting to think that would be a great policy in general for everybody.

I think they also said AI companies go offline during exam hours, but I may have got that wrong.

Absolutely wild that we’re seeing proposals to shut down parts of the internet and regulate when people can talk to each other on social platforms as a real suggestion on HN.

I feel like we’ve completely lost the plot when we’re starting to invite government partial Internet shutdowns as a good idea. This is a totalitarian government play.

I think it speaks to the complete lack of government regulation in the area that people see such extreme answers as positive. If any government had seen fit to engage in light regulation of what social media can do people might be happier.

Evidence suggests the polar opposite.

Governments have been working on regulating platforms. Every time they get close, there’s outrage when people realize what it means for them.

Age regulations are the best example. Every time the topic comes up there is a lot of support for government regulation of social media by age.

Then every time there comes an actual attempt at government regulation or even self-regulation by the companies, everyone goes ballistic when they realize what that regulation means.

This topic is awash in ideas that regulation will come in like a scalpel that only touches something that won’t affect anything we like, only hurt some companies in some specific way that doesn’t take anything away from us. This notion doesn’t survive contact with reality.

That’s how we get these short sighted comments inviting the government to come shut down parts of the internet. I bet the person who asked for that assumed it would be perfectly targeted at sites they don’t need or use, leaving their version of the internet untouched. They never imagined the government might scope creep it to start shutting down communications they didn’t like.

I think you are too much on Social Media.

Maybe the people of " Age regulations are the best example. Every time the topic comes up there is a lot of support for government regulation of social media by age." and " Then every time there comes an actual attempt at government regulation or even self-regulation by the companies, everyone goes ballistic when they realize what that regulation means." are different?

"This topic is awash in ideas that regulation will come in like a scalpel that only touches something that won’t affect anything we like, only hurt some companies in some specific way that doesn’t take anything away from us. This notion doesn’t survive contact with reality." Depends on the regulation. Also maybe the non intended effects are still worth to introduce the regulation?

Light regulation won't cut it any more for companies that are too big to jail.

You can always nationalize ;)

If it's so dangerous, get off social media, and get your kids off it. It's literally that simple. We don't need a nanny state telling the rest of us how to live because some scared, hysterical parents need a villain

I can only imagine these people have never experienced such censorship.

Maybe they'll feel differently when they have to upload their ID and face scan (which later gets leaked) just to be able to read a recipe for beer or whatever.

> I feel like we’ve completely lost the plot when we’re starting to invite government partial Internet shutdowns as a good idea. This is a totalitarian government play.

There's been criticism about the culture surrounding platforms like Mastodon/Bluesky that anticipated this.

But it's kind of a logical, if misguided, consequence of regulators being completely corrupt and letting those feudal lords do whatever the hell they want.

As opposed to totalitarian tech overlords?

It becomes even more wild when you put it next to the response to cloudflare getting blocked in certain European countries during sports matches.

People love to ask the big government daddy to step on them and when it actually happens they start wondering why would any sane person want that.

> This is a totalitarian government play.

Putting China aside, and regardless about one's opinion on the aformentionned measure, I think you need first to learn the concept about totalitarian governement and representative democracy before trying to use those words because you clearly don't know what these are.

It's only 'lost the plot' if we still believe in the false narrative of cyber libertarianism.

There is potential harm in us doing regulation but there is also benefits thinking it's this binary option of free VS slavery is imo. Harmful.

I can understand regulating dark/abusive patterns, but at the end of the day I should be allowed to doomscroll at night if I want to

>I can understand regulating dark/abusive patterns, but at the end of the day I should be allowed to doomscroll at night if I [am an addict]

You don’t need to be an addict to doomscroll, drink alcohol, consume weed, etc. In free countries we generally consider it ok let you do things that aren’t necessarily good for you at large doses.

> I'm starting to think that would be a great policy in general for everybody.

And what are these imagined ills you are curing?

Toast notifications were the big mistake. Also badges. In my perfect world, the only thing to retain the ability to keep messages alerting the user that someone tried to contact them would be voicemail, subject to the same spam laws as everything else.

Unfortunately it seems like by design on IOS there is no way to make an IOS blocker you cannot disable relatively easily. I would love a way to have a DNS blocker that you need a password to disable but it seems like this isn't possible. Every blocking app you can simply delete and the block goes away.