• MerrySkeptic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Vaccines? PARENTS CHOICE, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED

    Social media? TOO DANGEROUS TO LET PARENTS DECIDE

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      While I’m not siding with Florida, I do agree that social media is not for children. To make it a law, however, will be impossible to enforce, making it pointless.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a try at state privatization of Internet, Texas is trying the same. Ironically both talk a lot of shit about Chinese censorship.

            • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Ah so “privatization” in the sense that it’s still government controlled but not at a national level and the type of state control they are aiming for is more akin to the abusive traditional privatization by corporations?

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Correct. They want to be their own nations inside of a nation, essentially they want federal benefits but only benefits, no oversight or you know reality.

      • MerrySkeptic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The point isn’t about whether or not social media is bad for kids. The point is about the hypocrisy of a political party that is willing to minimize the legal and social consequences of parents opting to not vaccinate their kids, arguing that it is up to the parents even though it clearly has health risks to other people that the unvaccinated kids come into contact with, but then say that the state has a moral obligation to protect kids from the harms of social media regardless of how the parents feel about it.

        While generally speaking, no, social media is not great for kids, there are some who can handle it responsibly. It’s a clear case of how parental discretion should be used. But the state is removing that option. Vaccinations and herd immunity, on the other hand, have a century or so of evidence and the risks of not being vaccinated are clearly demonstrable, but consequences like no access to public schools are disappearing. The internal logic isn’t there, it’s all just pandering to an idiotic political base.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      iirc an under-16 law was vetoed for parents’ choice, but the under-14 one was not. I guess we know where they think the line is now?

  • Pasta Dental
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    How are they going to enforce this? By asking for their ID⁉️

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      A bad thing. Always a bad thing. Opinions on social media aside, the government putting further control on access to the internet is always a bad thing.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Hey look it’s one of those issues where I overlap with republicans. Haven’t seen one of these since what, before 2016? I was starting to think it would never happen again!