this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2021
61 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
33617 readers
1177 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's disturbing to think of a social network for kids, but a lot of kids are on current social networks, so maybe it could actually be a little bit of a safer place for them.
IMO social networks as they're currently designed are bad enough for adults. We shouldn't normalize them (too late I suppose). Ie. Your argument is similar to saying, "It's disturbing to think of kids smoking, but a lot already are, so maybe having child cigarettes would be a bit safer for them." I'm of the opinion that children under a certain age shouldn't have access to social media at all, in the same way you can't smoke or drink under a certain age until they are taught/understand it's implications on their mental/physical health.
Yeah probably they shouldn't be on social media. I'm just saying that it could be an improvement over the current situation. If children were constantly smoking cigarettes, giving them juuls would arguably be an improvement too.
If you don't solve the background issue I don't see any improvement when you have the power to do it.
This is like people speaking about vegetarianism (a diet) and veganism (a movement) and saying that if people go to vegetarianism is any better which is false, because slavery still exists as you don't solve the speciesm and associated issues.
Nah, vegetarianism is an improvement from the perspective of animal rights. Fewer animals die. If you're going to be puritan about it then veganism doesn't help either because you still contribute to animal death by any number of activities, like driving a car and potentially running over a squirrel, or even all the animals that die from oil production. Or what about pest control on vegetable farms.
Veganism doesn't involve only a diet in opposite to vegetarianism and being puritan as you tell, doesn't mean that you are fundamentalist. You do as far as possible.
Vegetarianism is not any improvement over that given the possibilities in that area (food) and other not taken into account in which non-human animals are still slaves and doesn't solve the background issues I named before like speciesm, etc
I don't know why people have ideas like "veganism involves just a diet" or "veganism is fundamentalist" or similar and even mix both concepts in a different sense like if there was a puritan veganism (fundamentalism) and the normal veganism (the diet).
Veganism is, itself, the minimum you can do for animal rights, not the maximum, the minimum, bare minimum. Nor vegetarianism, etc.
That is why I put it as example in this case with Facebook.
Your discourse over improvement shows a typical ordinary falacy which use to be called "everything counts" in which the user of it introduces information that doesn't help for the issue and justify it as that.
If I own ten chickens and I kill and eat three, is that morally equivalent in your mind to owning ten chickens and killing and eating seven?
In both cases the user who is going to eat kill them to be their food, it is exactly the same issue.
I don't get how it avoids the background issue. You can be principally against killing any chickens and still recognize a situation where fewer chickens die as preferable.
The case is out of any contextualized situation.
I set that you respect other animals' rights and fight for them in the maximum possible and this is not a situation where the person has two options and all the world is involved on it to solve that. And the idea is improve that situation with the effort and the time to avoid the issues happen again.
Yes my comment is not in context, it's a general statement about what is preferable. I was just initially saying that it's possible, even though it is disgusting and signifies a decline in childhood well-being, that a facebook for only children might be a net improvement in the world.
True. Incrementalism vs. Radicalism.