While creating nationwide bans of socially deleterious software is not likely to become politically viable in the short term, banning such software in controlled environments will likely prove to be far more palatable. Before the decade is out, we should be able to normalize banning these apps in places where young adults collect socially, such as college campuses. There is legal precedent for this, as TikTok has been banned from many colleges on national security grounds. We should also invoke freedom of association to allow the establishment of physical communities where abstinence from certain forms of communication technology is a condition of residence.
This was really quite good. And as an attorney with a fair amount of experience in First Amendment issues, and a strong disposition in favor of free speech, I think your hypothetical legislative proposals are more viable (Constitutionally) than casual readers might assume.
Your goal actually can be accomplished better by this:
- Keep the Industrial Recalibration Act
- But for everything else, rather than banning the software and stuff, you ban the HARDWARE instead.
1. No smartphones and tablets for kids under 18 or 21. Criminalize that shit like selling underage alcohol or smoking, and this is deliberate.
If you want Internet connection, get a laptop or PC, and if you want communication, use dumb phones / feature phones. You may get feature phones / dumb phones with WhatsApp or equivalent, but that's it. No smartphones.
2. No smartphones and tablets at universities and military bases.
3. Corporations get tax cuts if they enforce this in their workplace.
Why?
Thing is being sucked to such Skinner's Box is a matter of addiction and it is a matter of that compulsive-impulsive "Imma check my phone" that is UNIQUELY addictive to smartphones the way dumb phones & laptops don't make you to do so.
That compulsive-impulsive Skinner's box is addictive and semi-subconscious, and the thing about Zoomer addiction and more is that they are drifted with this since being sentient is actually harder because all the energy is already used to consume brainrot.
However, laptops and PCs aren't as addictive. You need the conscious effort to set up your laptop (Take it from your bag, put it on the table, maybe plug it in, then turn on) - this being the default mode actually forces sentience.
This is also easier to enforce than targeting the software (Seriously, governments are RIDICULOUSLY bad at micromanaging software and stuff, especially since software is software and therefore easier to evade govt bans). Hardware is easier because the main question is: "Do you need actual conscious mental effort to start it?" Laptops & PCs do have that, but tablets and smartphones don't.
Also, this way you only need 2 Acts. Not 6. Remember, Congress can't even agree to raise its own salary in general, so
Also. Every Millennial ever online should remember the biggest lie of the Internet: "I have read the Terms and Agreements" and "I am over 18 years old" - which they always do all the time but somehow forget today.
Now you're talking. Also, I have no idea why your commenters seem to think you would need a dictator or public executions or whatever...all this shit is already what most UMC liberals *already do* with their own kids and themselves. And public support for this would easily be like 80%. The reason it would be hard is because Zuck and Elon and now Trump's Tik Tok cronies have enormous vested interests and won't let it happen. Also kind of LOLed about getting men back into hard materials and industry .... look at Elon Musk. The dude owns a space company and half the satellites, yet he spends half his time pushing his dumb-ass AI which isn't much good for anything other than making videos of identical 12 year-old girls with huge tits dressed up in different outfits.
I unironically agree with all these proposals, but also agree with the comments in that these things simply cannot happen with our current system of government. This would require either a single authoritarian leader or a vanguard party-esque oligarchy like what China has. There is way too many layers of bullshit, red tape, and far too powerful entrenched interests that would never be alright with simply stepping aside. Not to mention, there’s always the possibility that “elites” actually want everyone else to be dumb as fuck and unable to breed since the big bet is blatantly on AI and robotics stepping in to handle labor.
This won't happen without an authoritarian enforcement sturcture - think building Bukele type huge prisons or even better, public executions. That would require telling the collective mass of women and their blue-pilled male allies to shut up (ie making sure they have no vote).
I don't mean to tear you down but this kind of thing is simply not feasible within the current structure of rule and law in place. Maybe with a dictator? I am open to that. An Actual Hitler just without targeting a specific race, instead we target unrepentant pornographers, child molesters, anybody who exploits algorithms to make people addicted.
I agree with the need to severely limit and regulate information flow in order to prevent us all from going insane. But is there any feasible way to do it? Seems like, without powerful governments backing it, such a restricted internet would need to rely on people voluntarily opting in. And women in particular seem very unlikely to do so.
Not as fucked up as the alternative we’re hurtling towards. Walt is right and what he describes here isn’t even particularly difficult to see, despite the wordcel nature of the post. (Seriously, we made a movie about this in the 2000s - the idea isn’t even original to him).
Idiocracy. A man of average intelligence in the mid-2000s gets cryogenically frozen and wakes up 200 years later to a world in barely-managed decline populated by idiots who are totally dependent on their technology, which is largely used for little more than to consume porn, advertisements, and violent media. The central conflict of the movie revolves around the main character trying to navigate a power structure completely devoid of merit and instead obsessed with charisma and an ability to rage bait in order to solve a global food crisis that exists because people water their crops with a Gatorade knockoff instead of actual water.
The alternative is articulated pretty well in this article.
The kids are definitely masturbating. It’s all an increasing amount do. And nah bro, it’s not good at all a larger potion of kids are getting zero relationship experience in their most formative times.
While creating nationwide bans of socially deleterious software is not likely to become politically viable in the short term, banning such software in controlled environments will likely prove to be far more palatable. Before the decade is out, we should be able to normalize banning these apps in places where young adults collect socially, such as college campuses. There is legal precedent for this, as TikTok has been banned from many colleges on national security grounds. We should also invoke freedom of association to allow the establishment of physical communities where abstinence from certain forms of communication technology is a condition of residence.
Apparently Match Group has a psychological research center called the Human Connection Hub: This is sickening. https://matchgroup-humanconnectionhub.com/
This was really quite good. And as an attorney with a fair amount of experience in First Amendment issues, and a strong disposition in favor of free speech, I think your hypothetical legislative proposals are more viable (Constitutionally) than casual readers might assume.
Your goal actually can be accomplished better by this:
- Keep the Industrial Recalibration Act
- But for everything else, rather than banning the software and stuff, you ban the HARDWARE instead.
1. No smartphones and tablets for kids under 18 or 21. Criminalize that shit like selling underage alcohol or smoking, and this is deliberate.
If you want Internet connection, get a laptop or PC, and if you want communication, use dumb phones / feature phones. You may get feature phones / dumb phones with WhatsApp or equivalent, but that's it. No smartphones.
2. No smartphones and tablets at universities and military bases.
3. Corporations get tax cuts if they enforce this in their workplace.
Why?
Thing is being sucked to such Skinner's Box is a matter of addiction and it is a matter of that compulsive-impulsive "Imma check my phone" that is UNIQUELY addictive to smartphones the way dumb phones & laptops don't make you to do so.
That compulsive-impulsive Skinner's box is addictive and semi-subconscious, and the thing about Zoomer addiction and more is that they are drifted with this since being sentient is actually harder because all the energy is already used to consume brainrot.
However, laptops and PCs aren't as addictive. You need the conscious effort to set up your laptop (Take it from your bag, put it on the table, maybe plug it in, then turn on) - this being the default mode actually forces sentience.
This is also easier to enforce than targeting the software (Seriously, governments are RIDICULOUSLY bad at micromanaging software and stuff, especially since software is software and therefore easier to evade govt bans). Hardware is easier because the main question is: "Do you need actual conscious mental effort to start it?" Laptops & PCs do have that, but tablets and smartphones don't.
Also, this way you only need 2 Acts. Not 6. Remember, Congress can't even agree to raise its own salary in general, so
Also. Every Millennial ever online should remember the biggest lie of the Internet: "I have read the Terms and Agreements" and "I am over 18 years old" - which they always do all the time but somehow forget today.
Restrict the hardware. It's easier.
This is an interesting approach. We need our own think tank to discuss these ideas further.
Now you're talking. Also, I have no idea why your commenters seem to think you would need a dictator or public executions or whatever...all this shit is already what most UMC liberals *already do* with their own kids and themselves. And public support for this would easily be like 80%. The reason it would be hard is because Zuck and Elon and now Trump's Tik Tok cronies have enormous vested interests and won't let it happen. Also kind of LOLed about getting men back into hard materials and industry .... look at Elon Musk. The dude owns a space company and half the satellites, yet he spends half his time pushing his dumb-ass AI which isn't much good for anything other than making videos of identical 12 year-old girls with huge tits dressed up in different outfits.
I unironically agree with all these proposals, but also agree with the comments in that these things simply cannot happen with our current system of government. This would require either a single authoritarian leader or a vanguard party-esque oligarchy like what China has. There is way too many layers of bullshit, red tape, and far too powerful entrenched interests that would never be alright with simply stepping aside. Not to mention, there’s always the possibility that “elites” actually want everyone else to be dumb as fuck and unable to breed since the big bet is blatantly on AI and robotics stepping in to handle labor.
This is Wally B at his best!
Yes yes yes and yes
This won't happen without an authoritarian enforcement sturcture - think building Bukele type huge prisons or even better, public executions. That would require telling the collective mass of women and their blue-pilled male allies to shut up (ie making sure they have no vote).
I don't mean to tear you down but this kind of thing is simply not feasible within the current structure of rule and law in place. Maybe with a dictator? I am open to that. An Actual Hitler just without targeting a specific race, instead we target unrepentant pornographers, child molesters, anybody who exploits algorithms to make people addicted.
I agree with the need to severely limit and regulate information flow in order to prevent us all from going insane. But is there any feasible way to do it? Seems like, without powerful governments backing it, such a restricted internet would need to rely on people voluntarily opting in. And women in particular seem very unlikely to do so.
So you also want censorship? That's fucked up.
Not as fucked up as the alternative we’re hurtling towards. Walt is right and what he describes here isn’t even particularly difficult to see, despite the wordcel nature of the post. (Seriously, we made a movie about this in the 2000s - the idea isn’t even original to him).
What movie?
Idiocracy. A man of average intelligence in the mid-2000s gets cryogenically frozen and wakes up 200 years later to a world in barely-managed decline populated by idiots who are totally dependent on their technology, which is largely used for little more than to consume porn, advertisements, and violent media. The central conflict of the movie revolves around the main character trying to navigate a power structure completely devoid of merit and instead obsessed with charisma and an ability to rage bait in order to solve a global food crisis that exists because people water their crops with a Gatorade knockoff instead of actual water.
What is the "alternative we're hurtling towards"? Isn't it good that kids aren't practicing fornication and masturbation?
The alternative is articulated pretty well in this article.
The kids are definitely masturbating. It’s all an increasing amount do. And nah bro, it’s not good at all a larger potion of kids are getting zero relationship experience in their most formative times.