Vivek Ramaswamy Calls For a Social Media Ban For Under 16s

submitted by Drewski from (reclaimthenet.org)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Drewski[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

While I agree that social media is harmful to children, it's not the job of the state to assume parental responsibilities. As per the article this would introduction of digital IDs, and it's disappointing to see Ramaswamy endorsing this kind of policy.

[–]iamonlyoneman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't be disappointed by Ramaswamy endorsing ANY shit-for-brains policy because he is a fool.

[–]passionflounderIndependent 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's not the job of the state to assume parental responsibilities

This is my issue. Proposals like this are a tell that the candidate in question at very best isn't serious about getting elected. At worst, they're budding statists aiming to fool a particular base into "demanding" tyranny at the ballot box.

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That will work out just as well as sexual abstinence classes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If that happens sneako cannot post high IQ rants anymore.

[–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror

[–]hfxB0oyAPirate Party 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's no way it would work, but the guy's not wrong.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't allow my children to use social media, but this is a parental decision. We don't want the state dictating how we raise our children. That's how you end up with the state transing the kids.