The point of cigarette warning labels was to kill off tobacco use. They didn’t ban cigarettes either, but that’s got nothing to do with the aim of the campaign.
I understand if your personal stance is that there should be zero government intervention in what people choose to use or not, but we don’t live in that world and likely never will because of the complexity of society.
So under THIS society and governing system, what would you say should be done about social media and it’s growing negative influence on people, particularly younger people and children? let’s say you’re THIS government and your people are asking for help with this problem so you need to spend the money they pay you somehow.
I don’t particularly feel like there needs to be a government campaign to get rid of Lemmy/kbin/mbin, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Did you read the article?
Yes.
Why did you not understand it then?
I did. What are you taking issue with?
They didn’t get rid of cigarettes, they just put warning labels on them. They want to do the same thing to social media.
The point of cigarette warning labels was to kill off tobacco use. They didn’t ban cigarettes either, but that’s got nothing to do with the aim of the campaign.
So would other warning labels required by law also be considered a campaign against said products?
I understand if your personal stance is that there should be zero government intervention in what people choose to use or not, but we don’t live in that world and likely never will because of the complexity of society.
So under THIS society and governing system, what would you say should be done about social media and it’s growing negative influence on people, particularly younger people and children? let’s say you’re THIS government and your people are asking for help with this problem so you need to spend the money they pay you somehow.