So as a compromise only allow people between 30 and 60 to vote?
(Which would be hilarious, as it means, allmost no one voted in office would be allowed to vote themself anymore, unless of course that would change, too)
On the flip side, it seems evident that younger people tend to vote for the betterment of all, while older people tend to shift toward voting for «themselves».
I’m talking of the typical left/right split. Where leftist policies tend toward redistribution of wealth to the benefit of broader swathes, while right oriented policies tend to at least lead to more concentration of wealth. Maybe it is an outdated bias, but until now at least my impression is that young people have had a greater tendency toward some form of humanistic idealism.
That's the traditional stereotype, but I have a hard time believing those whose internet presence is mostly manifested as Twitter stan wars and tiktok trends care about greater ideals than the next viral trend
It’s just different forms of selfishness. Many young adults on the left voting for free shit from the government are voting for it because they would get it. They don’t actually care about the VA or whatever other stuff they don’t qualify for.
Then they get decent paying jobs and vote for the party that gets rid of the programs they no longer qualify for in order to reduce their taxation.
Not true; young, childless people don't think about the next generation, because why would they? It's game-theory optimal for them to maximize laws which benefit them personally, as they don't have to worry about their children growing up with the consequences.
Frankly, society would be a lot better if the childless couldn't vote; leave voting to people who have a stake in society's future!
(And yes, adoption counts, doesn't need to be biological -- not excluding anyone here.)
>Frankly, society would be a lot better if the childless couldn't vote; leave voting to people who have a stake in society's future!
Whoa now. Just because I am childless doesn’t mean I don’t care about future generations. I still have friends and family that do have children and I vote with that in mind.
Hard to tell whether you are being sarcastic or not; just in case you aren't, it's trivial to confirm that few people vote in a game-theory optimal manner.
I’m against protected class laws and I am for accepting reality and making public policy based on that reality. It is just my view that social media is unhealthy at any age.
> There's nothing keeping you here on a social media website
There’s nothing keeping you here in a casino, gambling your wages away.
There’s nothing keeping you here in a bar drinking yourself to oblivion.
There’s nothing keeping you here smoking three packs a day until you’re shitting tar.
The age old advice to “just stop” doesn’t quite work for those most at risk. Harm minimisation is a reasonable thing. We don’t think it’s a good idea for young kids to smoke, drink, drive, vote or have sex. Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic, why wouldn’t we want to regulate it based on age?
> Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic
Who is this "we" that accepts that uncritically? I've been on "social media" since I was 8yo and my little brother has been on social media since he was a baby. Now he's becoming a doctor. He grew up with the 1st gen iPhone which was released 17 years ago.
FWIW I think the drinking age of 21 in the US is kinda silly. Many Americans start driving at 14 (with employment letter) or at 15.5 and many Americans buy their first rifle at 18 years old.
Who’s being uncritical here? I’m not an alcoholic and neither is my sister. That doesn’t mean alcoholism doesn’t exist nor that there aren’t very real harms to a small subset of the population. Great enough harm (that also impacts on non-alcoholics), that we’ve collectively decided to regulate an otherwise legal substance. Would you suggest that we shouldn’t age-limit alcohol? And even with the things you quote - driving and gun ownership - there’s still an age limit, not no age limit. The specific number is irrelevant and up for discussion, but we’ve still decided for those things that there exists a “too young” category.
EDITED to remove a stupid phone autocorrection/autoinsertion.
EDIT: I should point out that in general what happens to other people does impact me so I do have a stake in the behavior of others. No man is an island.
I’m not a social media addict, I only use HN occasionally and really only to remind myself what other people are like. Without this I would forget and assume things about people that are just not true. I treat social media like the dangerous drug that it is and intentionally limit my exposure. But not everyone can do that. I personally know many people who have let social media ruin their lives and their minds to the point I’m not even sure they are rehabilitatable.
I wasn’t proposing a ban, I don’t trust the government with that much power and regulation would be difficult- at what point does a social club become social media. I guess my appeal to time travel did not properly reflect this perceived futility.
I think the only way would be as an Amish like intentional community with a religious level of enforcement. E.g. You can use social media but only in the shed, not in the house. But that’s not realistic so I just have to accept that X% of the population are not going to make it unscathed. These people will become a burden on the state at a time when the state is increasingly reaching to voluntary euthanasia for solutions. Perhaps in time people will socially and genetically evolve in ways that’ll be able to deal with it.
> I can think of plenty of reasons people want to control others' time
So can I
- They want to control people like property
- They want to impose their views and values
- They don't want any competition
- They have a power trip
- They want to use others time for their own benefit
