So should tabacco and alcohol manufacturers be allowed to advertise specifically to kids? After all, it's just the parents responsiblity for their children. The fact that a media giant is spending literally billions of dollars per year to get kids and teenagers glued to their service to drive up engagement has nothing to do with the problem, right? It's all on parents?
Perhaps you can't read. I said "...some responsibility..." That's because I don't believe it's "...all on parents". You can win any argument by misquoting the other person but nothing actually gets resolved that way.
Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Two reasons I read your top-level comment the same way gambiting did:
Idiomatically, "some responsibility" unfortunately isn't unambiguous. Yeah, you could mean it like how you clarified now, but if you tell someone "hey, take some responsibility for this!", that could just as well be equivalent to "hey, take responsibility for this!". It wasn't crystal clear to what degree you wanted to put it solely on the parents.
But more importantly, you ended your comment by referring to this as "stupid shit", which seems to indicate that you _don't_ think parents should be able to sue social media companies for addicting kids, that you might not even think it's worth considering, and because of that I think bringing up the comparison to tobacco and alcohol was relevant.
> Straight question: why did you misrepresent what I said?
Seeing as everyone here has interpreted your comment in the more or less the same way, as an obvious lack of understanding around the realities of raising children, maybe it's not them misinterpreting you.
might have something to do with the fact that you misrepresented the entire other side of the argument, and in such gratingly hyperbolic fashion... the doublethink is unreal.
literally no one would disagree that "parents have some responsibility towards their children."
He almost certainly got his opinion from media that also argued against those things and for the same reason, because they are morally bankrupt propagandists for hire.
Yeah, where are the lawsuits against fast food and the junk food industry? Disney puts their toys in happy meals so lets sue them too. They have caused an obesity epidemic amongst children.
Don't even get me started on Lay-Z-Boy chairs and Sony TVs. How many years have sedentary activities taken off our lives!?
> A consumer group wants to keep Tony the Tiger from promoting sugary cereals on the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon show, or anywhere else kids are watching.
> The Center for Science in the Public Interest Wednesday announced legal action to try to stop the Kellogg Co. (K), maker of cereals like Frosted Flakes, and Nickelodeon cable network Viacom Inc., (VIA) from marketing junk food to children.
This is about advertising services to kids tho. Cereal and its pretty logos still appear in stores, in actual ads (just not during Spongebob), on billboards, and more.
This story is more like forbidding kellogs from using mascots on cereal boxes. Which seems both nonsensical and ineffective. Seems like a huge climb to prove that web design is specifically addicting children. It's also a slightly moot point because most social media TOS require a user to be 13 years old anyway.
While other people have pointed out that this is already happening, but even if it wasn't, inability to solve one problem should not stop you from solving another.
"Yeah, where are the lawsuits against fast food and the junk food industry?"
about 15 years ago... the fast food companies won. Seems like all they can succeed on is skimping out on straws.
But yea, I agree on the same line of reasoning. There's a lotta bad stuff out there, it's up to parents to navigate their kids to have them actually understand why it is bad and limit consumption. Not treat it as some forbidden fruit to dine on behind your back. suing companies for providing services that aren't inherently harmful is a slippery slope I'd rather not take.
