this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
39532 readers
468 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Only commercial social media.
Even if they somehow limit time spent on forums, mastodon, whatever, content can be saved for later consumption, and responses composed for later posting. Instant access to the latest tweet or tiktok isn't helping anyone but advertisers.
We aren't sure how this rebutts what we said. Commercial social media seems to us to be the problem for the most part, open source social media run by real people seems to be a lot healthier from what we have experienced.
If you read what I wrote, open source social media is also easier to consume and interact with in the manner I described. Usenet, e-mail, IRC, forums, even private messaging and group-chats are both healthier to interact with and less demanding of our time than "services" that bury the content we want to see like facebook and the rest.
Every single one is still around and in use by the same people who built the internet and others who get more done for themselves and open-source projects than you or I or most of us on Lemmy and the more modern de-federated schemes.
So.why do you want restrictions targeting marginalised groups?
What in god's green earth about limitting social media usage for everyone on a daily time-use basis implies anything about targetting marginalized groups? Things that are detrimental to mental health, like excessive social media consumption, aren't magically less-so for marginalized groups.
If anything, such media is a distraction and pacifier of sorts.
There are people who literally cannot leave the house and their community is literally on social media. Are you saying their mental health would not decline if they were unable to reach their community due to some asinine law like this?
Get this straight: Private Messaging and e-mail are not Social Media in the context of this law, and neither are phone calls or texts. Give me an hour, and I can download enough pages of whatever I like to keep me busy for a week.
Seeking validation from strangers in real-time is bad for your mental health. Yes, even for the home-bound. That said, your argument would probably win-out in court, so there would have to be exceptions. "Adult" is still too broad of an exception on its own IMHO.
Yes, I understand that. But not everybody can talk all the time like that, some people can only really have enough energy for social media, not talking one-to-one, I know a few.
Woah, I'm not talking about "seeking validation from strangers". I'm talking about building actual community online, and that being all some people have due to either homeboundness, or other reasons where online is the only community they can know, I'm saying such a law would genuinely put those people in jeopardy, no matter what age they are.