Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Eh, so there are a number of oddities with your statements here that don't reflect the reality of what actually happened.

> I don't think we should have the state banning all of these things.

The issue here on your part is one of understanding hard power versus soft power. Looking at TV from a holistic perspective, the state has banned a lot of what we'd consider harmful behavior. Over the air programming is relatively tame, and content we consider harmful is more gated and behind paywalls.

For the average video game the condition is the same. You have Sony and Microsoft gating the consoles. You have steam gating much of the PC world, and outside of that you have the credit card companies gating making money of more controversial items.

An area we have the opposite problem is the one of junk food. This entire just self regulate while companies reap record profits selling you purposefully addictive food is working out "fucking great"... for the companies that is, of course for the ever increasing burden of obesity on the country, things aren't going so well.



The post I was responding to was advocating for a "smart phone age", i.e. the state banning smartphone use for people under a certain age like we have for alcohol and other hard drugs. All of your examples are examples of regulations, not bans on a particular product. The video game example doesn't even involve the state; all you mentioned are private companies.

I'm not opposed to all regulations. I just don't believe we should have the state deciding when people can or can't use a computer, which is what a smartphone really is. It's up to parents to decide up to a certain age, and after that people have autonomy and can make their own decisions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: