> Just to remember that a few decades ago, same kind of persons were stating that books and free press are responsible for all of the moral corruption of the society
Sure, and those are not “the same kind of people” with the same motives nor rationale nor basis in knowledge as the people advocating for constraints around social media in the present day.
There are religious bookbanners today and they have very little overlap with the anti-social media crowd.
> There are religious bookbanners today and they have very little overlap with the anti-social media crowd.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. To me it doesn't matter whether there's any actual overlap between the groups. It's the censorious impulse they share. Believing that they have the right to make this type of decision for others is what makes them the "same kind of people".
I did nothing of the sort. You're trying to set up a classic slippery slope fallacy and I'm not going to play that game.
Me: I think alcohol prohibitionists are meddling busybodies.
You: Oh, well, I guess you think there's nothing wrong with injecting babies with pure grain alcohol starting at birth.
Me: I think furnaces and central heating are wonderful inventions.
You: Oh, well, I guess you think it's okay to go around setting houses on fire.
That's how the game is played. I stopped being impressed by it decades ago. Likely before you were even born.
I think you’re quite confused on this point.