Most of the people who voted for President-elect Donald Trump wanted a world where people celebrate special occasions together, contribute to the community, show respect for the elders, take care of their bodies, and be careful to indulge their appetites. Most of the people who voted against candidate Kamala Harris wanted a world where people do these things, too. This commonality exists because these practices allow humans to meet our basic information needs, especially sensory information.
Recently, my partner Criscillia and I have proved the truth by mathematically knowing that the brain’s need for trust is not the information you find in newspapers or books. This is the information we receive through our senses: vision, sound, smell, taste, touch and mutual perception. Real people know that the nervous system needs real life.
The same mathematics shows that digital input is bad for us. The more “personalized” they are, the worse they are. Because personalized digital technology makes a lot of money, basic tensions compare private profits to public health. Even after trying for a decade, I have never heard of any scientific differences in this argument. The mathematics of information flow and all unbiased evidence agree: digital media impairs learning and social skills. Therefore, any country that wants to protect its youth must severely limit the digital exposure of children.
When Trump took office, the United States had to face the choice formally, thus leading the terrible technology and leveraging the most from it. The Senate side has passed the Children’s Online Safety Act (KOSA), a proposed legislation aimed at protecting children on the Internet, with odds of 91-3, showing bipartisan support. However, the House has stalled and tried to weaken it to make it easier in the industry.
The House will vote on Kosa on Tuesday, December 17. Will members of Congress protect children from known digital toxins? Or will they protect the profit margins of contributors? It seems too close.
Scythe and freedom of speech
Big News This week was when Trump’s Tech Vizier, the world’s most influential tech expert Elon Musk announced his support for Kosa. More importantly, he and CEO Linda Yaccarino of X helped the house restore the Senate version of teeth. He and his tech companies voted for technology.
Unlike earlier bills, Kosa aims to identify and neutralize toxins, not just give it a name and punishment. In this case, the toxin is described in the key term “design function”. Design functions are software elements (such as “infinite scrolling”) that unconsciously carry the human nervous system; individuals cannot defend themselves. Since “persuasive techniques” were considered good rather than evil, their basic structure has been understood mathematically. Kosa’s genius approach is embedded in legislation that builds industry knowledge into norms industries and protects children and adolescents.
The main objection to Kosa is based on a weird myth, under the name of “free speech”. In the United States, freedom of speech means that people can express their ideas without government intervention, which is beneficial to democracy. Furthermore, speaking loudly in public is very beneficial to the nervous system based on our scientific understanding of trust. Therefore, what our founding fathers imagined was still alive.
Unfortunately, there is also a crowd in the United States who think typing posts equals using sound. Some of them further claimed that freedom of speech should be applied in ways that are not relevant to voice or even to people, so any regulations constitute a “censorship system.”
A person who calls himself smart by saying such words. But should foreign servers hosting porn get free speech? What about social media platforms urging children to commit suicide?
Musk is right: choose life. Science says so.
((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.