Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> it's hard to detect any rational point.

Really? I think I detected at least:

1. This moral panic is either overblown or wildly inconsistent.

2. If it's impossible to imagine the same kind of government restriction being proposed for aging adults, why accept it for other groups?

> Digital is far more addictive, radicalizing, privacy-invading and exploitative compared to TV.

Or perhaps the unidirectional nature of TV consumption makes for powerful radicalizing propaganda--especially to an at-home group with fewer external connections to ground them--and the passivity of the consumption rots your brain and dries up critical thinking.



1. This moral panic is either overblown or wildly inconsistent.

As the issue at heart is young people's screen time, the article did nothing to demonstrate that it is not overblown. Old people watch TV is not a comeback that negates the young people's issue.

Is the moral panic inconsistent? Hell yes, and for very obvious reasons. The negatives matter a 100 times more for people at the beginning of their lives, as well as for our future as a whole.

2. If it's impossible to imagine the same kind of government restriction being proposed for aging adults, why accept it for other groups?

Because they're old. Old means you're close to death. Pretty much nothing matters anymore.


Aging adults have no potential left.


I assume this is snark but just in case it isn't, this is not how you should view aging adults. Potential is always limitless, only the possibility of realizing that potential reduces as one nears end of life. But then, who knows when someone's end of life is?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: