Not trying to hijack this thread, but in my research, I'm seeing so much of this same concern and responses and feel like we're doing a lot to help but maybe missing the "real incentive" and "money maker" of these big tech companies and are just fighting on their left flank, rather than surrounding them.
I agree with this and all that this stack is trying to accomplish. My opinion is that this is going to follow the same pattern as what we saw during and after the industrial revolution.
Change is good, necessary, and I want everyone to feel safe and have the ability to use social media as a supporting and positive community, if they so choose. (Age Appropriate).
As you said, these big companies are already adjusting, spinning messages, appealing lawsuits, and will use political influence and spend billions of dollars so that yes, changes around the edges look like progress, but the core part of the system that is their cash cow, will not change.
I write about this briefly in this short article, and more extensively in my book.
Chapter 9 of my book goes into much more detail of the comparison of the Digital and Industrial revolution, and what is likely to happen over the next couple of decades. Chapter 6 of my book goes into detail of how AI chatbots, and AI integration into social media is taking all of this to the next level that is just beginning to be understood.
My articles and books aren't disagreeing with anything Jon Haidt and this stack are writing about, if anything, I hope I'm adding an additional layer to it all.
I admit my patience for this Stack is waning. It's one thing to use social/commercial pressure social media companies to "do better." It's fine to pressure schools to keep cell phones out of kids' hands during school hours. It's fine to educate parents (and kids and people in general) on the dangers of phone and social media over-exposure.
But there doesn't seem to be any discussion on how quickly "social media [government] regulation" can become fundamentally and incontrovertibly authoritarian, antithetical to democracy, and incongruent with free speech and 1st Amendment principles. "Smily face censorship" is still censorship and every government censor in history used "the greater good" as part of their argument.
I clearly won't be moving my donation dollars from FIRE to After Babel anytime soon.
I actually agree with you. That is why I advocate for design based legislation. Keep content out of it and put it on the technology. It is absolutely feasible.
This is a great point and I've thought the same thing. I'm not trying to hijack anyone else's post, or do any advertising but wrote about this subject myself and share a little different perspective.
In America, as a society, we have protected kids from what we deem as harm. For instance, porn magazines were put behind the counter and ID was presented to purchase. Books and movies have ratings to help delineate appropriate content for children/YA. Back in the day, movie goers who looked under 18 were carded before a ticked was sold for a R movie. SM/internet is far more harmful now that we know tech shows harmful content w/o restriction and they manipulate the algorithm to show more of it and it has an addictive behavior. On the internet, adults have access to kids with no guardrails. Organizations, business and schools run background checks to catch those who have been convicted of abuse. Of course the argument is that it doesn't get those who weren't but we have protocols in place to deal with that scenario. We do not have such safeguards on the internet.
I think you're conflating free speech with protection of minors.
Good point. What I’m trying to say, is that I think the way these companies will push back is to conflate free speech with this, much needed protection. Age and content controls are absolutely needed.
I remember at 16 when a movie theater wouldn’t let me buy a ticket to see “The Blue Lagoon”. Lol.
I'm so sorry you were bullied for being "too feminine". Kids can be cruel and stupid. If you look around, you will see many men have "feminine" traits; some are straight and some are gay so there isn't a clear cut path to being gay based on these traits. It seems as a society as of late, we put far too much emphasis on sexual orientation and identity.
I do hope you look more closely at your pathway to where you are now and reflect on what influenced you and how that took shape. What you have unwittingly described are the same paths that other detransitioners have spoken about. Perhaps looking at theirs and comparing to yours, you can see similarities.
I also do not agree with your judgement that gay, transgender and queer (whatever that is) kids do not have supportive families. Many of the transgender kids cut off their parents not the other way around. The kids were influenced by transgender people who say if they don't use the name or 100% affirm, cutting off is the only option.
Being a parent means we try to protect our kids to the best of our ability, but as you mention tech has been insidious and parents are not able to protect their kids against the reaches of SM for various reasons. Too many vulnerable kids have fallen into its trap.
Finally, as you are aware, being transgender unfortunately can mean medicalizing which is very harmful to a body. Even socially transitioning is mentally taxing. No parent wants their child to experience poor healthy, physically or mentally.
I am a proud transgender woman on HRT and I am healthy as can be. I agree that invasive medical procedures can be harmful for young children. No one is advocating for that. Gender affirming care can be as simple as a hair cut or fully reversible puberty blocker. I hope you can find it in your heart to learn more about us. We are much stronger together.
where else do you get 17 chances to stop doing harm? makes me very angry...
Not trying to hijack this thread, but in my research, I'm seeing so much of this same concern and responses and feel like we're doing a lot to help but maybe missing the "real incentive" and "money maker" of these big tech companies and are just fighting on their left flank, rather than surrounding them.
I agree with this and all that this stack is trying to accomplish. My opinion is that this is going to follow the same pattern as what we saw during and after the industrial revolution.
Change is good, necessary, and I want everyone to feel safe and have the ability to use social media as a supporting and positive community, if they so choose. (Age Appropriate).
As you said, these big companies are already adjusting, spinning messages, appealing lawsuits, and will use political influence and spend billions of dollars so that yes, changes around the edges look like progress, but the core part of the system that is their cash cow, will not change.
I write about this briefly in this short article, and more extensively in my book.
https://stayingoriented.substack.com/p/weve-seen-this-pattern-before-were?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
Chapter 9 of my book goes into much more detail of the comparison of the Digital and Industrial revolution, and what is likely to happen over the next couple of decades. Chapter 6 of my book goes into detail of how AI chatbots, and AI integration into social media is taking all of this to the next level that is just beginning to be understood.
My articles and books aren't disagreeing with anything Jon Haidt and this stack are writing about, if anything, I hope I'm adding an additional layer to it all.
https://a.co/d/00vDN2wd
appreciate this perspective!
Thank you so much, Lennon, for speaking out and sharing this powerful message!
thank you!!
I admit my patience for this Stack is waning. It's one thing to use social/commercial pressure social media companies to "do better." It's fine to pressure schools to keep cell phones out of kids' hands during school hours. It's fine to educate parents (and kids and people in general) on the dangers of phone and social media over-exposure.
But there doesn't seem to be any discussion on how quickly "social media [government] regulation" can become fundamentally and incontrovertibly authoritarian, antithetical to democracy, and incongruent with free speech and 1st Amendment principles. "Smily face censorship" is still censorship and every government censor in history used "the greater good" as part of their argument.
I clearly won't be moving my donation dollars from FIRE to After Babel anytime soon.
I actually agree with you. That is why I advocate for design based legislation. Keep content out of it and put it on the technology. It is absolutely feasible.
This is a great point and I've thought the same thing. I'm not trying to hijack anyone else's post, or do any advertising but wrote about this subject myself and share a little different perspective.
https://substack.com/@stayingoriented/note/p-194418437?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=8150ro
Also, I have a book on this subject and chapter 9 is directly relevant to what you're saying.
https://a.co/d/0fuYbGdn
I advocate for content neutral legislation and design based regulation for that very reason.
In America, as a society, we have protected kids from what we deem as harm. For instance, porn magazines were put behind the counter and ID was presented to purchase. Books and movies have ratings to help delineate appropriate content for children/YA. Back in the day, movie goers who looked under 18 were carded before a ticked was sold for a R movie. SM/internet is far more harmful now that we know tech shows harmful content w/o restriction and they manipulate the algorithm to show more of it and it has an addictive behavior. On the internet, adults have access to kids with no guardrails. Organizations, business and schools run background checks to catch those who have been convicted of abuse. Of course the argument is that it doesn't get those who weren't but we have protocols in place to deal with that scenario. We do not have such safeguards on the internet.
I think you're conflating free speech with protection of minors.
Good point. What I’m trying to say, is that I think the way these companies will push back is to conflate free speech with this, much needed protection. Age and content controls are absolutely needed.
I remember at 16 when a movie theater wouldn’t let me buy a ticket to see “The Blue Lagoon”. Lol.
Dear Lennon,
I'm so sorry you were bullied for being "too feminine". Kids can be cruel and stupid. If you look around, you will see many men have "feminine" traits; some are straight and some are gay so there isn't a clear cut path to being gay based on these traits. It seems as a society as of late, we put far too much emphasis on sexual orientation and identity.
I do hope you look more closely at your pathway to where you are now and reflect on what influenced you and how that took shape. What you have unwittingly described are the same paths that other detransitioners have spoken about. Perhaps looking at theirs and comparing to yours, you can see similarities.
I also do not agree with your judgement that gay, transgender and queer (whatever that is) kids do not have supportive families. Many of the transgender kids cut off their parents not the other way around. The kids were influenced by transgender people who say if they don't use the name or 100% affirm, cutting off is the only option.
Being a parent means we try to protect our kids to the best of our ability, but as you mention tech has been insidious and parents are not able to protect their kids against the reaches of SM for various reasons. Too many vulnerable kids have fallen into its trap.
Finally, as you are aware, being transgender unfortunately can mean medicalizing which is very harmful to a body. Even socially transitioning is mentally taxing. No parent wants their child to experience poor healthy, physically or mentally.
I wish you health, resiliency and peace.
I am a proud transgender woman on HRT and I am healthy as can be. I agree that invasive medical procedures can be harmful for young children. No one is advocating for that. Gender affirming care can be as simple as a hair cut or fully reversible puberty blocker. I hope you can find it in your heart to learn more about us. We are much stronger together.