Notices by Boswell (jamesboswell@seocommunity.social)

@mmasnick @c_9 more like i agree that legislators shouldn't make a ridiculous knee jerk call, especially if the science isn't there, but sometimes a bit of regulation isn't a bad thing, and we do not have the benefit of science in every example

the example i mentioned before were vapes. Shops are banned from selling them to kids in the UK (not that it stops them puffing away like crazy). The science isn't yet massively clear on the harm caused. Would you be against harsher regulation?

@mmasnick @c_9 Who is harmed from a tiny bit of regulation to try to reduce the chance of kids getting bullied or groomed on social? Or to reduce the illegal voting interference while they're at it

@c_9 @mmasnick

The initiative is a totally shit solution. However, it is harmful in my view

One of the studies there actually says a 3rd of teenage girls said the negatives outweigh positives on body image issues. So what defines unharmful? As long as less than 50% aren't harmed?

Also, isn't it fact that kids have been groomed or bullied to death by social media? It's not very responsible to say "social media isnt harmful" when there are parents/kids who have gone through that.

@c_9 @mmasnick i get that, but legislators don't always have the benefit of waiting for science.

If it seems/feels bad then do something reasonable to stop it. Imo this proposed legislation is bollocks, and yes for the severity of their solution I suppose it is only reasonable that we ask them to show how they can prove harm

@thomasfuchs @kev if the manufacturer had decent online documentation then it'd outperform all the shit in Google. So imo the impetus should be with the manufacturer and it should be a consumer right and legal obligation

@thomasfuchs Noone will trust the crappy uncited results of a bot