I mean, they’re not wrong but Instagram, Facebook, etc should also be in that lawsuit.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
296 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59758 readers
3968 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because Meta ain’t Chinese and makes large donations to both political parties.
Will they apply same logic to….lets say a 200 billion dollar hedge fund disguised as a ~~cult~~ religion?
Not sure if referencing Crypto scams, MLMs, or the Mormon church. All are common in Utah
Mormonism is far worse
I bet they're losing a lot of their kids from their religion because of what's on there. That was my immediate thought.
It's possible for more than one thing to be bad, we don't have to pick just one of the two.
"worse" generally means more bad than another thing that is also bad.
It also implies that one (the worst one) deserves more attention. In this case we should probably be paying attention to both.
Mm no, they just said it was worse. You're reaching.
No, they said it was "far worse," which definitely implies a ranking of how bad they perceive the respective issues.
It's possible for more than one thing to be bad, we don't have to pick just one of the two.
This is what they said; they implied the root comment was saying that two things couldn't be bad or only one could be solved. But it didn't. He said, paraphrasing, "there are two issues and I find this one to be far worse".
Ranking issues in terms of how bad they are seems a fairly normal thing to do. It also implies that there is more than one.
they implied the root comment was saying that two things couldn't be bad or only one could be solved.
I don't agree with that interpretation.
They simply stated that ranking things by "badness" also implies a ranking in terms of which one of those bad things is more urgent and should be addressed first - not that one thing was bad and that the other wasn't, or that only one thing could be addressed.
It's a bad interpretation but you are, or course, welcome to it
I'm merely reiterating the position of the poster you replied to.
You can disagree with that position, but you seemed to be replying to a position that nobody was even taking.
I am not, you just haven't understood the position. But that's fine.
You were clearly arguing against a position that nobody here took.
That means you either lack the reading comprehension to understand what was stated, or you're purposefully creating a strawman to argue against.
I've explained in detail, you've not understood the explanation and taken an illogical stance.
I can't help you out of a hole you've put yourself in. It's okay to disagree though, you don't have to lower yourself to ad hominems.
Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You're the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?
Can you quote where I attacked you?
Of course, I'd be happy to!
It was when you questioned my comprehension of the argument that was being made instead of the argument itself by saying "you just haven't understood the position."
That's literally an ad hominem.
No that was an observation. I'm not judging you for it, I don't think you're of poor character due to it.
You however did attack my character. Ironically because once again you've misunderstood the situation.
No that was an observation.
An observation about the argument is part of a debate, an observation about the person that is making the argument is an ad hominem.
It's literally the definition of "ad hominem."
In that regard, your defense that you were merely making an observation is irrelevant. It's relevant what you were making an observation about.
I'm not judging you for it, I don't think you're of poor character due to it.
Again irrelevant, and I don't particularly care either way what you may or may not think about me.
The relevant point is that instead of tackling the argument that was being made, you decided to instead attack my comprehension.
That's an ad hominem, an attack on the person you're having a conversation with.
I'm not complaining about that, by the way, I'm merely providing you with an explanation since you're apparently ignorant - i.e. lacking the knowledge - of what does and what doesn't constitute an ad hominem.
You, on the other hand, are the one complaining about being attacked after bringing the conversation down to a level of ad hominem attacks, and you seem to be interested in maintaining that low level of discourse by throwing in another ad hominem here.
So my suggestion to you would be: either refrain from attacking other posters and focus on the arguments they're making, or try not acting insulted when you're being treated the same way that you're treating others.
Good. Now sue the rest of the social media companies for the same thing.
Facebook lures middle aged women into......
"We're going to be the ones who indoctrinate your kids" (Utah was founded by Mormons, oops I mean The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Gotta use the actual name.)
I wouldn't take issue with this if X, Meta (for Instagram,) and Google (for YouTube Shorts) were getting sued as well. But I don't think TikTok should be singled out.
They should treat these social media companies like they did the silk road creator.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
TikTok lures children into hours of social media use, misrepresents the app’s safety and deceptively portrays itself as independent of its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, Utah claims in the lawsuit.
Arkansas and Indiana have filed similar lawsuits while the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether state attempts to regulate social media platforms such as Facebook, X and TikTok violate the Constitution.
Research has shown that children who spend more than three hours a day on social media double their risk of poor mental health, including anxiety and depression, the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit seeks to force TikTok to change its “destructive behavior” while imposing fines and penalties to fund education efforts and otherwise address damage done to Utah children, Reyes said.
They will impose a digital curfew on people under 18, which will require minors to get parental consent to sign up for social media apps and force companies to verify the ages of all their Utah users.
They also require tech companies to give parents access to their kids’ accounts and private messages, raising concern among some child advocates about further harming children’s mental health.
The original article contains 425 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They will impose a digital curfew on people under 18, which will require minors to get parental consent to sign up for social media apps and force companies to verify the ages of all their Utah users.
This is laughable. I played this game before with my own kids. I would find their new Myspace account and have it removed. They would just go to a friends house whose parents didn't care and sign up for a new one. It was a back and forth. Then my now-ex started arguing with me about it once the kids started whining about it. Now they are grown and can do whatever they want. It was a battle I was never going to win, but if Utah thinks they can manage this, I would love to watch. Gonna go make some popcorn.
Utahns are ACTIVELY playing this game with porn sites right now. Curious as to how that’s working for them.
Trying to split the internet into "adults'" and "children's" sections is never going to work — not without a mandatory ID system that nobody wants — nobody who isn't attached to a spy organization or totalitarian regime, at least. You can't treat it like alcohol or tobacco because nobody's giving away alcohol and tobacco for free; we restrict access primarily at the point of sale. There's no point of sale for social media, and no comparable way to restrict it.
However, what you can do is regulate advertising to the point where the dark patterns used by data-harvesting platforms like TikTok, Google, Facebook, etc. are simply not commercially viable. The EU is moving in that direction already.
for some reason I feel like this has no legs