Post a response:
|
You do not address my central argument Your central argument was that the solution was shared ownership. I addressed that argument. Still, since your defence rests on the spectacularly implausible claim that we are all of us perfectly free to get filthy rich and start up our own social tech firms, I don't suppose it's a defence I need waste any time over. None of what I said was in defense of capitalism. It was to show that your arguments with respect to social media and oligarchs were wrong Are you not free to start up your own social media site? did the oligarchs not do the same, before they were oligarchs? Is online social space a real thing? Or is it just a concept that doesnt exist in reality? And therefore cannot be enclosed or stolen. If your whole definition of the problem is wrong, then any solution you come up with is also likely to be wrong. as far as the spectrum between seeming to be indifferent to youngsters' welfare or going along with further measures which demarcate childhood as a separate and specially protected stage, i think in this case its a false dichotomy. It would be possible, for example, to give boys more freedom in some areas, and still ban social media. And further, if we gave boys back the freedom to roam and play outside, they would be less likely to be on social media anyway. the fact that all the wealth and power is in the hands of a few, is irrelevant if the boys are outside playing. Its also on the adults to put down their phones and engage with their kids. but giving back that freedom is not in anyones power, i dont think. Unless you are claiming that somehow taking over the online social spaces will bring it back? |