by Jem Smith » 11 Apr 2026, 03:11
Fergal wrote:Jem Smith wrote:she became addicted to social media at 6 years old
Did she have parents or other caregivers to look after her and protect her?
It doesn't say. I'm guessing she had parents or guardians who neglected her. It's an extreme case, but even loving, caring parents sometimes drop the ball when it comes to new technology, not knowing where the new dangers are to be wary of (I'm thinking more of things like seemingly innocent online games where bullying happens, or pedophiles groom children while pretending to be children themselves).
-- 11 Apr 2026, 13:13 --
bestwriter wrote:Addiction is a disease and that needs treatment. Strange that this woman won her case. The court should have instead directed her to a psychiatrist.
She'd have been to one already many times for it to come to this. You can't claim psychological harm without medical professionals signing off on it.
[quote="Fergal"][quote="Jem Smith"]she became addicted to social media at 6 years old[/quote]
Did she have parents or other caregivers to look after her and protect her?[/quote]
It doesn't say. I'm guessing she had parents or guardians who neglected her. It's an extreme case, but even loving, caring parents sometimes drop the ball when it comes to new technology, not knowing where the new dangers are to be wary of (I'm thinking more of things like seemingly innocent online games where bullying happens, or pedophiles groom children while pretending to be children themselves).
-- 11 Apr 2026, 13:13 --
[quote="bestwriter"]Addiction is a disease and that needs treatment. Strange that this woman won her case. The court should have instead directed her to a psychiatrist.[/quote]
She'd have been to one already many times for it to come to this. You can't claim psychological harm without medical professionals signing off on it.