Why blame China? This dire situation is not on foreign nations seeking to destroy US democracy, it's entirely on domestic robber barons capturing the State for their own gains. China has very little soft power among the general population, while Musk, Ellison and the other propagandists run the show.
Our domestic robber barons are building the capacity to monitor and control Americans in ways similar to those used by China to monitor and control their population.
China isn't to blame, but they are a frightening example of where things are headed and they're giving the robber barons screwing us a blueprint to follow.
Being discriminated against by the government sucks, and so does getting locked out of the main way the world communicates in the 21st century. I don't blame a 14 year old for not handling a violation of their rights in a mature manner.
Or, just hear me out, this is what a moral panic looks like on social media.
I'm going to be honest: I don't believe the story, it reads exactly like what someone who banned their kids from video games, TV or texting would say 20 years ago, even if the kid didn't have what everyone, including you, is assuming is an "addiction", despite being wholly unqualified to diagnose such a thing, let alone over the internet through a 2nd hand story lol.
To quote the top replies to that thread:
> Ironic that OP turns to social media for support because her kid’s access to said support has been removed.
And
> We need to remember that this is the societal structure of their world and it is also the only one they have ever known - then in a single evening, it was gone. But also, not for everyone; so injustice is now mixed in to the equation.
> She's going to need time to adjust and she's also going to need ways to stay in contact with her friends, because at the end of the day that is what she is upset about: the loss of social contact.
I'd examine why you're so willing to believe what you read on social media despite the lack of real data and evidence towards the claims you're accepting at face value.
> Or, just hear me out, this is what a moral panic looks like on social media.
Could be, could be, except moral panics are usually absent evidence, whereas here we have meta's own researchers discovering and attempting to suppress the knowledge that people become addicted -
Or evidence that "Company documents cited in the complaint described several Meta officials acknowledging the company designed its products to exploit shortcomings in youthful psychology" -
And legal opinions (the references on this one are good and contain further information on the poor mental health outcomes associated with youth social media use) -
Dismissing this as "moral panic" seems wrong with that background of well-grounded concern.
> To quote the top replies to that thread:
Those are neither the best nor the top replies, why did you feel the need to misrepresent that?
> I'd examine why you're so willing to believe what you read on social media despite the lack of real data and evidence towards the claims you're accepting at face value.
I'd examine why you're so keen to ignore the real data and evidence in favour of your moral panic theory.
It's certainly an interesting story. I'd still take it with a grain of salt, as often this kind of Reddit family story is closer to an exercise in creative writing than anything else, but that's besides the point.
I remember a communication by the World Health Organization that concluded that social media and video games are not addictive like drugs are, because they don't cause chemical withdrawal when immediately stopped. Maybe what this mother is actually witnessing is her daughter suddenly feeling socially excluded after having filled the void by social media until now?
Where exactly the line is between 'withdrawal' and anxiety caused by a sudden, non-voluntary change in habits, I'm not sure, but I'd say that the one looks very like a symptom of the other.
If we're willing to admit gambling to the list of things that can be addictive, then I'm not sure why other dopamine-related compulsive activities shouldn't be treated the same. Restlessness is well known as a gambling withdrawal symptom.
The décret establishing the list of social networks forbidden to the <15 yo will be appealed before the Conseil d'État, which will most likely send a question to the CJEU and have the ability to cancel the décret, so I would argue that their opinion is extremely relevant. Same thing for the eventual sanctions taken by the Arcom.
European law takes precedence over national law, so the effectiveness of the bill appears to be limited. The same thing happened with the French age verification bill for adult websites.
Which European law supersedes this law? My unfamiliar guess is that if there is no specific contradiction then French law stands, otherwise how can any country pass any laws in the EU?
> "By imposing a ban on access to social media on online platforms, the wording of the proposed law could be seen as raising difficulties with regard to the Digital Services Act."
I don't know how it works in France, but in common law systems opinions of other courts are always at least capable of being persuasive (not binding) precedent, so they are not irrelevant. Other courts can be, and often are, influenced by persuasive precedent when appropriate.
The Conseil d'État isn't even a court per se, it doesn't make rulings, it doesn't set precedents. Its only job is to make sure that new laws voted by Parliament aren't unconstitutional. And when they are, they simply remove the part deemed so, and have to let the rest pass through.
That's not how it works, at all. Russia didn't become a dictatorship after censoring fascists. Quite the contrary, in fact. By giving a platform to fascism, you risk losing all free speech once it gains power. That's what's happening in the US.
Censorship is not a way to dictatorship, dictatorship is a way to censorship. Free speech shouldn't be extended to the people who actively work against it, for obvious reasons.
I actually think disenfranchisement is the only solution. Nazis didn't change their worldview after the war ended, they were shamed for them and learned to hide.
Republicans are now defending straight-up murder in broad daylight by federal forces. I doubt there's anything that could change their minds at this point, they're too far gone.
If it was only that... What I really take issue with are all the mentally ill trolls jumping in to defend ICE, lying through their teeth about the content of videos we all saw. But actually supporting murder isn't enough to get you banned in here.
You saw the videos, the guy only had a phone in hand, he got tear gased, pinned to the ground, and then they unloaded their guns on him. Stop lying about what you saw, or we'll start to believe you're actually pro-murder.
Phone was in his right hand (our left) and gun was holstered near his other hand. The gun went off into the ground as P320s are known to do when they removed it from him and officers reacted.
It's fascinating how Trump voters are able to reshape their reality to fit the Party's official line. All these years I thought Orwell was exaggerating...
Thank you for the much needed hopeful note. Maybe I'll try doing exactly that, sounds like a fun hobby. My biggest worry about Linux on mobile is that banking apps will stubbornly refuse to offer support to these platforms, basically forever.
reply