Posted by mdhb 5 days ago
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.
Absolutely, I would have been fine with the stock not growing as fast (it would still have grown, Meta has billions of users), as would every single one of the IC's I regularly worked with.
So why didnt you? Thats my question.
IM guessing you worked in London? I met a few PMs from Meta. And just to put it mildly, they fit the description of what I described - gave a big talk about how bad it was inside, but when faced with the option of walking and giving away monetary gains - nah. Self interest is king.
Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it, you have profited handsomely from a firm that has caused a great deal of harm / and in many cases has intentionally created an environment that has heightened the senses, for financial gain.
I also saw you joined circa 2020 and have enjoyed the rapid growth in share price - and left just on the 4 year mark, enjoying the SBC to the max. Easy to say that you'd give all that up, after you received the gains and left.
You are also creating a contorted argument to hold onto your blame, making a bonfire out of your credibility. Which is possibly why you are using a new account?
I’m just saying that some companies might release more information if the reaction wasn’t always adversarial. It’s not just meta. There’s a constant demand for outrage against big companies.
Some of those reactions on that spectrum would lead to greater human flourishing and well-being, others of those reactions would lead to the opposite. Now think about the reaction they actually _did_ have. Where on the aforementioned spectrum would their actual reaction fall?
Zooming out, how have they reacted to similar circumstances in the past when their own internal research or data indicated a negative impact on people?
The continued "outrage" is that they've exhibited a recurrent pattern across myriad occurrences.
It's also worth pointing out this comes hot on the heels of the internal ai chatbot <> children memo leak [1] so people might not be likely to give them the benefit of the doubt atm...
Who doesn't like these?