Past the standard critique of paternalism note that the institution responsible for preventing harm themselves shape the conditions under which harm occurs. Likewise this points to a failure in democratic legitimacy, that being: Even if public morality reflects the preference of the majority, those preferences don't justify the resulting restrictions in particular when the disapproval contributes to the harms.
I propose two tests
What extent would the harm persist if society ceased stigmatizing the behavior?
What extent would the harm persist if the institutions that impose the penalty was changed? Be that ownership, site design (as proposed, albeit nebulously, in the article) or institutional organization.
To help bring legitimacy towards democratic coercion the status quo must not hold a privileged position, beyond their practice. This is especially important in issues involving the younger generation where the older has out-sized power and influence. Look no further than the recent political revolutions that have happened in majority youth countries.
Personally I find it concerning that Haide has slowly walked his audience from reasonable positions to no children should never be allowed (by a site) to talk to anonymous unverified adults, and that'd he double down on this absolutist position when site changes show improvements in harm by his definition. I fear they will only become more insular from here, even if they could untie sexism and ageism from their philosophy I'm not sure what it'd look like but it'd be more interesting, perhaps even a chance to understand protection. I know I'd rather risk a shark bite than life as a slave, if Haide views children as slaves to social media I wish he'd just go mask off and say it already.
I propose two tests What extent would the harm persist if society ceased stigmatizing the behavior?
What extent would the harm persist if the institutions that impose the penalty was changed? Be that ownership, site design (as proposed, albeit nebulously, in the article) or institutional organization.
To help bring legitimacy towards democratic coercion the status quo must not hold a privileged position, beyond their practice. This is especially important in issues involving the younger generation where the older has out-sized power and influence. Look no further than the recent political revolutions that have happened in majority youth countries.
Personally I find it concerning that Haide has slowly walked his audience from reasonable positions to no children should never be allowed (by a site) to talk to anonymous unverified adults, and that'd he double down on this absolutist position when site changes show improvements in harm by his definition. I fear they will only become more insular from here, even if they could untie sexism and ageism from their philosophy I'm not sure what it'd look like but it'd be more interesting, perhaps even a chance to understand protection. I know I'd rather risk a shark bite than life as a slave, if Haide views children as slaves to social media I wish he'd just go mask off and say it already.