To the editor: As an advocate of free speech as assured by the first Modification, I disagree with the jury’s verdict, and am very involved for the way forward for web freedom (“Landmark L.A. jury verdict finds Instagram, YouTube were designed to addict kids,” March 25).
I don’t know what the plaintiff’s early historical past was that might have contributed to the psychological issues she described, however I do know one factor: Social media corporations are actually not liable for that.
I’m not speaking simply in regards to the plaintiff on this case. It’s the job of oldsters to show their kids the distinction between proper and flawed, and domesticate in them a robust will to keep away from addictive behaviors. Mother and father have to regulate their kids’s viewing actions and set the bounds. As kids flip into youngsters, they need to be studying to set their very own limits.
On the finish of the day, people want to have the ability to resist flawed or unsuitable behaviors on their very own. This consists of not simply “unhealthy” speech, but additionally authorities overreach in lots of areas.
Alice Lillie, Pomona
..
To the editor: I couldn’t agree extra with visitor contributor Daniel Katz (“Social media platforms aren’t the new cigarettes. They’re worse,” March 25). Social platforms are worse than cigarettes and I’d wish to see the platforms and the businesses that run them face penalties and bans like cigarette corporations.
No use in sure public locations. Certain, that one shall be onerous to police as a result of anybody on their cellphone in a restaurant can say they’re texting a buddy, nevertheless it’s a begin. Get the ban on the books so public notion of those platforms goes the best way of Massive Tobacco. And the way a few warning label anytime a person pulls up one among these websites? “Warning: This web site is thought to be doubtlessly hazardous to your well being. Proceed with excessive warning.”
And should the lawsuits and financial judgments proceed.
Craig Rosen, Los Angeles
