While I’m not siding with Florida, I do agree that social media is not for children. To make it a law, however, will be impossible to enforce, making it pointless.
Ah so “privatization” in the sense that it’s still government controlled but not at a national level and the type of state control they are aiming for is more akin to the abusive traditional privatization by corporations?
Correct. They want to be their own nations inside of a nation, essentially they want federal benefits but only benefits, no oversight or you know reality.
The point isn’t about whether or not social media is bad for kids. The point is about the hypocrisy of a political party that is willing to minimize the legal and social consequences of parents opting to not vaccinate their kids, arguing that it is up to the parents even though it clearly has health risks to other people that the unvaccinated kids come into contact with, but then say that the state has a moral obligation to protect kids from the harms of social media regardless of how the parents feel about it.
While generally speaking, no, social media is not great for kids, there are some who can handle it responsibly. It’s a clear case of how parental discretion should be used. But the state is removing that option. Vaccinations and herd immunity, on the other hand, have a century or so of evidence and the risks of not being vaccinated are clearly demonstrable, but consequences like no access to public schools are disappearing. The internal logic isn’t there, it’s all just pandering to an idiotic political base.
Vaccines? PARENTS CHOICE, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED
Social media? TOO DANGEROUS TO LET PARENTS DECIDE
While I’m not siding with Florida, I do agree that social media is not for children. To make it a law, however, will be impossible to enforce, making it pointless.
It’s a try at state privatization of Internet, Texas is trying the same. Ironically both talk a lot of shit about Chinese censorship.
In this context what do you mean by state privatization?
They want to control Internet media in their state.
Ah so “privatization” in the sense that it’s still government controlled but not at a national level and the type of state control they are aiming for is more akin to the abusive traditional privatization by corporations?
Correct. They want to be their own nations inside of a nation, essentially they want federal benefits but only benefits, no oversight or you know reality.
The point isn’t about whether or not social media is bad for kids. The point is about the hypocrisy of a political party that is willing to minimize the legal and social consequences of parents opting to not vaccinate their kids, arguing that it is up to the parents even though it clearly has health risks to other people that the unvaccinated kids come into contact with, but then say that the state has a moral obligation to protect kids from the harms of social media regardless of how the parents feel about it.
While generally speaking, no, social media is not great for kids, there are some who can handle it responsibly. It’s a clear case of how parental discretion should be used. But the state is removing that option. Vaccinations and herd immunity, on the other hand, have a century or so of evidence and the risks of not being vaccinated are clearly demonstrable, but consequences like no access to public schools are disappearing. The internal logic isn’t there, it’s all just pandering to an idiotic political base.
iirc an under-16 law was vetoed for parents’ choice, but the under-14 one was not. I guess we know where they think the line is now?