Protecting People From So-called 'Social Media' is Not Censorship (No More Than Banning or Restricting Access to Cigarettes is 'Censorship')
Related: Bytedance/TikTok is a Threat to Freedom, Including Free Speech | Fentanylware (TikTok) Just Doing Exactly What It Was Supposed to Do
UCL or University College London (UK), which is a reputable university I was involved in 2 decades ago as part of my Ph.D., has some new research. It basically tells people not to participate in social control media for their health's sake.
So what if almost all British politicians are nowadays immersed (and compromised) in silos of oligarchs like Musk and Zuck... or the Communist Party of China... instead of having their OWN SITE? Daniel Pocock wrote many articles about it last month. He repeatedly complained that rival politicians had basically abandoned their own sites (they let those expire, with the domain/s up for grabs) because apparently doing their campaigning in American and Chinese mind-prisons is so much better!
So what if almost all British kids are nowadays immersed (and compromised) in silos of oligarchs like Musk and Zuck... or the Communist Party of China... instead of having their - gasp! - SOCIAL LIFE?
As an associate has put it, "youth seem to waste 5 to 6 hours per day avoiding life experience. That's basically all hours outside of school. Apparently studies show that ones like that also waste their time in school jonesing for social control media instead of paying attention or participating."
When it comes to things that work like that, we treat them all similarly, even Mastodon. Bluesky? Hard pass! So-called 'Social Media' isn't designed to help its users and we wrote a number of articles about it this morning. We generally support what Australia is trying to achieve this year and efforts to ban TikTok in the US; it's not censorship when the thing you are censoring [sic] is itself a censorship powerhouse operated by a foreign and hostile nation (or oligarchs of Musk's nature). Ask Romania... █