undefined

points

[-]

>I'm not saying legislation is a good solution but you seem to be making a poetic plea that benefits the abusers.

Only if you believe everyone else has no agency of their own. I think most people outgrow these things once they have something more interesting in their lives. Or once they're just bored.

Back when this thing was new, everyone was posting pictures of every food item they try, every place they've been to etc.. that seems to slowly change to now where there are a lot more passive consumers compared to a few polished producers.

If you're calling people delivering the content "abusers", what would you call people creating the content for the same machine?

by andybak4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't believe people have no agency.

But I do believe we overestimate our own agency. Or more importantly society is often structured on the assumption that we have more agency then we actually do.

by 2muchcoffeeman3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

because some people suffer from mental health issues and need help and encouragement to break these behaviours.

And companies should not be allowed to predate on the vulnerable.

by bdangubic3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

where does it stop though? I suffer from cant-stop-eating-nutella but should we shut down ferrero? it is simply not possible to protect the vulnerable in a free society. any protection only gives power into the wrong hands and will eventually get weaponized to protect “vulnerable” (e.g. our kids from learning math cause some ruling party likes their future voters dumb)

by randomNumber74 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I would say the core problem is that we lack a goal as society. If you only care about making money stuff like this happens regardless how many regulations you do.