Garbage article. There is scientific data and this isn’t a restriction. It’s an educational label. I don’t imagine it will be particularly effective, but it strips no one of any rights. I’d rather see something like what they do on ciggy boxes in Europe with lung cancer photos on the box, but maybe with a picture of an obese depressed kid or something.
The Surgeon General’s suggestion that speech be labeled as dangerous is extraordinary. Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, all of which are physical products—rather than communications platforms—that can cause physical injury. Government warnings on speech implicate our fundamental rights to speak, to receive information, and to think. Murthy’s effort will harm teens, not help them, and the announcement puts the surgeon general in the same category as censorial public officials like Anthony Comstock.
Um what. I don’t think it was about labeling speech. It’s labeling the platform which includes a lot more than speech. Namely how and what speech is presented to a particular individual a.k.a. The Algorithm. This reads like a disingenuous interpretation to safeguard the interest of social media giants. I did not expect this take from the EFF.
Go home EFF, you’re drunk.
Clearly you’re not a lawyer. Just someone with bad opinion.
If we survived Tipper Gore’s “Explicit Lyrics” warnings on CDs, I think we can survive this.
Everyone wanted the explicit copy, it made it more desirable.
But, as a counterpoint, traditional media is just as bad, if not worse, because it is desperately trying to stay relevant by selling fear.
“If it bleeds it leads” isn’t exactly new. Maybe all media needs these warnings.
WARNING: This media conglomerate is owned by people who have vested interest in profit over truth.
I’m definitely on the same page as the EFF on this one.
