107
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
107 points (97.3% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3684 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah cause it was real effective against cigarettes. How about you ban their ability to advertise? That at least did something.
One of the supporting arguments is literally that it was effective against cigarettes…
I know it's an anecdote but I work in retail and there is no shortage of people buying cigarettes. We have more types, flavors, and selections of ways to smoke yourself into the ground not a one who cares about the warning. I just personally think the advertising and making it look good was what actually pushed them onto new users. People know it'll kill you, what they need to forget is the lie that it's cool, yummy, or fun.
This isn’t aimed to stop everyone from using it, but to lower the number. There is no claim that warning labels have halted all sales of cigarettes, just that a correlation between the labels and fewer cigarettes exists. There may even be evidence that backs up causation, but I’m not familiar with the topic so can’t speak to it.
I'd say it created some social permission for the advertising restrictions to happen later. Worth doing, even if it's not going to be sufficient.
I think we have the social pressure for the advertising restrictions, the TikTok ban being a pretty interesting case on it's own, I'm just frustrated at the half-measure because as with smoking, the warning to stop will be as effective as asking a 17 year old if they're 18 before going to a porn site. What'll keep them off social media is not knowing it's there to begin with.