The problem, i.m.o. is that there is nothing innately wrong with attempting to influence someone else's frame. The problem is when people try to coercively undermine others.
Imagine you have a friend with a toxic framing, is it frame control to try and influence them to change their frame to be grounded? Implicitly? Explicitly?
Reading this it comes across to me as though you realize that this is a problem in the post, and are trying to defend it with a "you know it when you see it" arguement.
At risk of sounding absurd, this seems analogous to saying a) talking is bad, because people can use it to say nasty things. b) well it is not always bad, but it kind of might be, and then c) if someone is a bad talker we can burn them with fire.
The concept seems hugely at risk of being used as a way to just invalidate people you disagree with. To give an example if you are devout Christian maybe an Atheist trying to pursuade you that God does not exist is in your eyes exhibiting coercive frame control, and visa versa. Ironically, the concept of frame control as articulated seems well suited to be used for frame controlling! E.g. "that person trying to teach you science, they're just here to frame control you!"
Ultimately, is do not think I understand what this post aims to achieve. What does this add separate to stating: 1) bad faith agents exist, and are hard to identify.
to guard against them i) ensure that you centre yourself, and ii) pay carefully attention to what you feel, why you feel it, your current frame, and the pressures on that frame. Along with iii) do not let yourself be isolated from those around you who ground you.
The problem, i.m.o. is that there is nothing innately wrong with attempting to influence someone else's frame. The problem is when people try to coercively undermine others.
Imagine you have a friend with a toxic framing, is it frame control to try and influence them to change their frame to be grounded? Implicitly? Explicitly?
Reading this it comes across to me as though you realize that this is a problem in the post, and are trying to defend it with a "you know it when you see it" arguement.
At risk of sounding absurd, this seems analogous to saying a) talking is bad, because people can use it to say nasty things. b) well it is not always bad, but it kind of might be, and then c) if someone is a bad talker we can burn them with fire.
The concept seems hugely at risk of being used as a way to just invalidate people you disagree with. To give an example if you are devout Christian maybe an Atheist trying to pursuade you that God does not exist is in your eyes exhibiting coercive frame control, and visa versa. Ironically, the concept of frame control as articulated seems well suited to be used for frame controlling! E.g. "that person trying to teach you science, they're just here to frame control you!"
Ultimately, is do not think I understand what this post aims to achieve. What does this add separate to stating: 1) bad faith agents exist, and are hard to identify.