Garbage article. There is scientific data and this isn't a restriction. It's an educational label. I don't imagine it will be particularly effective, but it strips no one of any rights. I'd rather see something like what they do on ciggy boxes in Europe with lung cancer photos on the box, but maybe with a picture of an obese depressed kid or something.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
-43 points (25.3% liked)
Technology
59190 readers
2281 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Have you bothered to actually read the SGs advisory? It's full of high quality citations or what predators lurking on X looking for underage children refer to as pseudo-science.
The Surgeon General’s suggestion that speech be labeled as dangerous is extraordinary. Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, all of which are physical products—rather than communications platforms—that can cause physical injury. Government warnings on speech implicate our fundamental rights to speak, to receive information, and to think. Murthy’s effort will harm teens, not help them, and the announcement puts the surgeon general in the same category as censorial public officials like Anthony Comstock.
Um what. I don't think it was about labeling speech. It's labeling the platform which includes a lot more than speech. Namely how and what speech is presented to a particular individual a.k.a. The Algorithm. This reads like a disingenuous interpretation to safeguard the interest of social media giants. I did not expect this take from the EFF.
Go home EFF, you're drunk.
Clearly you're not a lawyer. Just someone with bad opinion.
Oh boy, this could be problematic.
If we survived Tipper Gore's "Explicit Lyrics" warnings on CDs, I think we can survive this.
Everyone wanted the explicit copy, it made it more desirable.
But, as a counterpoint, traditional media is just as bad, if not worse, because it is desperately trying to stay relevant by selling fear.
"If it bleeds it leads" isn't exactly new. Maybe all media needs these warnings.
WARNING: This media conglomerate is owned by people who have vested interest in profit over truth.
Print and TV can't possibly compete with the amount of rage generated by the hyper personalized targeting machine that Facebook is. Add to that the fact that anyone can push their flavor of rage for a modest price. I don't know if you've used Facebook over the last few years but if you haven't, you should give it a spin. It's incredible.
Still the label applies well to all corporate media.
This is a great idea. But it would involve politicians revealing their own biases and brainwashing so it will never happen.
Where is the warning on cars? On guns? These are the leading causes of death for children, not to mention humanity and the planet more generally, but we'll never see any warnings.
This attack on apps is pathetic political nonsense based on pseudo-science. There's no clear legal definition for "social media app". What about chatting on Steam? Does that need a warning? They just want to label certain apps as "bad" so they can monitor and control. It's a continuation of the attack on TikTok. Fascism is imperialism at home.
To be fair, you need a license to drive cars
I'm definitely on the same page as the EFF on this one.