• Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Sure, we give the kids alcohol, let them drive, let them vote- wait we don’t!? What do you mean there’s always been these kinds of differences!?

    • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Using these as an excuse for arbritary additional restrictions doesn’t make your arguement stronger, it makes those restrictions morally suspect. This arguement means we need clearer frameworks on what is and isn’t a reasonable restriction on account of age to avoid the drinking age being a justification for erosion of rights

    • Miller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I wonder if some of those critics are by an odd coincidence funded by phone related entities.

      • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I suspect it would be more likely social media companies.

        BTW a bit unrelated (unless it is social media companies behind it), in the comments I saw somebody against the ban mentioning school shootings and worrying about not having contact with their child. I think banning smart phones and allowing “dumb” ones would be a good compromise for that specific issue.