this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
83 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38583 readers
535 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
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 50 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This is ageism. Social media should be banned for everyone.

[–] remington@beehaw.org 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't believe you read the article nor gave this any thought before you made your flippant comment. Also, you give no reasoning for your dogmatic statements.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I read the piece and have been thinking about this daily for thirty years.

The guy is right and the piece sucks.

It's borderline satanic panic that hasn't thought through the downstream ramifications of even attempting to implement age gates online. And as the previous poster says the negative effects of social media are at the absolute least just as bad in adults. The scaremongering about drug dealers and pedophiles is just that.

[–] remington@beehaw.org 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There! That's much better! I agree and well done.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 21 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Really? You were going for some Socratic roundabout ironic thing? Could have just said what you thought, saved everybody the trouble. That feels a bit patronizing.

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@remington is all about healthy discussion. He doesn't mind when people disagree, just as long as they say why.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

Patronizingly cryptic AND with disciples coming in behind him to explain his whole deal.

He should watch out for roaming cups of hemlock, just in case.

[–] remington@beehaw.org 6 points 3 days ago

You were going for some Socratic roundabout ironic thing?

No.

That feels a bit patronizing.

That was not my intent. I apologize if anyone felt this way.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like someone needs to take a little break from social media.

[–] remington@beehaw.org 1 points 3 days ago
[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Internet anonymity in general is a terrible thing and I would do away with it if I could. I'm impossible to say who's a real person, who's a bot, who's an alternate account. It's allowed every evil and terrible person to find others like them and embolden each other without the oversight of social pressure from the rest of society which I think is an essentially needed social cue of healthy human communities.

Yes I realize the irony of posting this on Lemmy.

[–] derbis@beehaw.org 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fuuuuck that. The option of anonymity is essential to freedom of expression especially where authoritarianism takes root. Especially important now.

I agree with you but it does cut both ways. Anonymity empowers assholes, too.

[–] sleepybisexual@beehaw.org 9 points 2 days ago

OK, legal name, Id

Give

L take. There's no shortage of people on FB posting under their real names some takes that are no better than those of the average /pol/ user. Anonymity is not the problem here.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 13 points 3 days ago

Okay cattywampas, if that even is your real name.