General Discussion

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2026, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree we are probably talking past each other to a degree, because I agree with the boycott idea. I also think it’s ultimately dismissive of her piece to suggest and applaud the “just don’t go there” solutions. She took the time, thought, and energy to write to the Guardian not for personal advice, but to advocate for change. You said “good point” to Greg’s “Stop It's no different than the old days. If there was a neighborhood where bad things happened, we simply didn't go to that neighborhood.” Even discounting the privilege his analogy assumes (that one doesn’t work or live in the “bad” neighborhood), what if it’s not just a neighborhood? It’s not really a good point because going to that “neighborhood” in this case is a central part of social interaction. It’s only made worse by the command “stop” being the whole of the title. Stop thinking about this issue because the solution is easy as modifying your social access to avoid bad actors full stop? I’m sure she has thought of that, so it’s really not offering a solution as much as admonishing her for not taking this “easy” solution rather than drawing our attention to this problem.
Your full response was more nuanced, but is dismissive of the role social media plays in social acceptance and furthermore dismissive of the content of the article. It’s dismissive because it didn’t engage the content of the article but rather just offered a solution regardless of its contents. One need not even assume either of you have read beyond the headline. The writer’s suggestion of banning children on social media is not outlandish as it has come about in Australia and is being considered in a slew of European countries, including the UK where the writer is presumably from. It’s certainly not certain how effective any of this might be, but that’s an argument to be had.