IG relies on extensive data collection, maximising time on devices, promoting a culture of over-sharing… certainly not appropriate for 7-yr olds.
Original tweet : https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1385591040724422659
Has a friend mine told me it will be a pedo social network
Having a social network for children is a pretty fucking terrible idea no matter how you look at it. I can’t think of a good reason why this would be beneficial to children that outweighs the risks (addiction, social isolation, exploitation, bullying, comparison). Like people should be up in arms about this idea.
As if PedoGram wasn’t filled with enough pedophile.
I already hear the Zucc laughing at them
only a dumb father would allow his son to use this
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.
True. Incrementalism vs. Radicalism.
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. 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.
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 expect that your way to think is that I choose killing less but that is exactly an utilitarianist POV.
Is that because ads can’t compete with pictures of cute babies?
Hmm. MyLOL flashbacks?
