Parents are worried, to the point they call for ''bans'' of ''social media''. Politicians, likewise clueless, are more than happy to go along in this sentiment.
The reason i say clueless is that they don't know what they are saying/proposing for two reasons:
First, the internet itself was military technology conceived for the purposes of keeping communication channels alive under pressure. Calling for a ''ban'' in that context is silly, given the whole point of the internet is to withstand such things. And for good reason, the Internet's censorship resistance gives the communication infrastructure that practically every facet of our society relies on, the resilience not to fall down with the first sign of trouble. If the internet were not as resilient, it would be wholly irresponsible to rely on it as much as we do.
Second, the Internet's open nature is essential to facilitate the values of liberty that most of us understand to be critical to our lives. The fact that permission is not a requirement for just everyday things lowering the friction in those mundane dealings; but also exactly for those aspects that are highly sensitive and form the desperately needed checks on power.
As a Dutchman i recognize that free speech, free association, free thought and free press are values that are at the core of my country's existence; values the Americans for example took to heart and subsequently codified as primary in their constitution, after they established themselves under the same premise my country once claimed its independence as the first modern Republic.
Calling for a ''ban'', can only result in one of two things.
Either it will be messy and ultimately pointless given the censorship resistant nature of the internet itself, leaving the proponents of the ban to expected dissatisfaction.
Or worse, that dissatisfaction will target the open internet itself, and will see in it the justification to impose totalitarianism of imposing permission of the State into all of those aspects of our lives the current internet touches.
I understand the grievances and worries at the basis of the current outcry for a solution. They see the impact of the other side of that openness, the dark that can come along with the good that liberty provides. It is imperative we communicate two things very explicitly to these people:
1: We understand that there are problems, we agree that they are problems, and we can find ways to mitigate these problems; your call for attention is justified.
2: Be VERY CAREFUL in what it is you demand, because the moment those demands go into the direction of bans, you will soon find yourself siding with tyranny, at which point you become my mortal enemy; i trust that not to be your intent.
Nostr.