Posted by mdhb 9/8/2025
Society is breaking down in part because of it.
America would be a nicer place if Mark Zuckerberg went to prison.
Edit: For the reply, about "Mastodon is not a company but many independent actors"...
Who on earth is making sure those independent actors don't do... any of that? If Mastodon gets large enough, don't be surprised when the largest instances start doing exactly that.
Built a screentime app to automatically block after chosen number of mins and it’s helping me. Completely free to try: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nomo-reduce-screen-time/id6748...
Surely not! Surely they would never do something unethical!
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
Mark Zuckerberg, 2004
[0] https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zucker...
> Zuck: Just ask.
> Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
> [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
> Zuck: People just submitted it.
> Zuck: I don't know why.
> Zuck: They "trust me"
> Zuck: Dumb fucks.
> Mark Zuckerberg, 2004
The sad thing is, he was totally right. The Zuck gets none of my data.
If they want to give their children devices to use unsupervised, then they should block access to whatever they deem harmful.
The only thing it achieves is ever growing helicopter parenting and related anxieties ... while the same people who complained about parents not controlling everything complain when they try.
We expect shops and passerbys to not sell porn or steal from kids in real life.
That's not what is happening on Facebook and there is no way I could believe you genuinely think that's what everyone is talking about. Did you even read the article? Porn isn't mentioned once. Pedophiles are asking kids to send them photos, trying to connect with them to arrange sex. You, upthread, told me that the sexual solicitation of minors was only harmful "subjectively" whatever that means.
Now imagine all government restrictions on these are removed, and there is a store within walking distance of your house that is staffed by employees that will willingly, without question, sell these items to your kids and their friends? Is it still all on the parents to prevent access?
What about if this store has advertisements specifically targeted toward children? Or has discounts on cigarettes/alcohol/... aimed at the lower age brackets? "First pack free if you're under 18".
Now put this "store" on the internet, accessible from your kid's cellular device.
There's a spectrum here.
Yes. When a child is too young, parents should be directly preventing access to those vices. As their children get older, parents should have instilled enough values into their children that constant surveillance is no longer required.
And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly.
Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.
Is that what Meta's research indicated?
> I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful.
How principled of you. Why don't you go shoot yourself in the head and report back.
Jumping into a conversation about pedophiles to offer that their harms are only subjective is just ridiculous but for some reason I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to realize that was wrong.
I never had access to cable television or video games growing up, while nearly all my classmates did. It wasn't a big deal.
You seem unsocialized, for what it's worth. Probably still not something TV or video games would fix.
I'll give you a hard reason of which you must not be aware: it actually takes two parents to have a child.
Think about why that's important. If one parent is too addicted to their own usage of Instagram, and models that for the kids, the kids will pull that towards them, no matter what the other parent does.
You cannot monitor children constantly, unless you are are, say, a billionaire tech executive who has willingly ignored all data to show that his products have damaged society and children in pursuit of personal profit.
There is only one person in the world that can afford to do what you suggest, and his initials are MZ.
I'll do my best raising my kids well, as you said.
Ideally a compromise can be reached, but in extreme cases I suppose it could end up with litigation. But still, this is a private dispute, not something that should require outsourcing parenting to the government.