If you were able to JUST "move the kids out of this area", that would be one thing, but we can't do it without treading on the rights of adults - especially their right to privacy and anonymity.
There are technically some implementations that will let adults prove they're adults while staying anonymous, but none of those implementations have gained serious traction with an actual government. The actual, REAL result is "you can't go online anonymously" - because governments and ad tech companies are DYING to know everything you look at and say online.
The kids are an excuse, just like they've always been.
This comment is a neat encapsulation of the hypocrisy in the “think of the children” mentality. We’ve gotta protect the kids, let’s push them around like obstacles and exclude them from society!
Meanwhile, social media is melting the brains of everyone over 45 into relitigating moon landing conspiracies. Maybe a bit less time in YouTube holes and a bit more time actually parenting would be good for both parties.
Well, "blame the parents" is as hypocritical as "think of the children". It just displaces the responsibility of excluding kids from society from the community to the parents.
Creating a safe society for everyone is one of the roles of the state/government. That is why they are granted a monopoly on violence. As you rightly say, children are members of the society and therefore they are included in that responsibility.
The Australian government should be rightly criticized for passing a law that makes being online less safe for adults. However, that doesn't mean we should dismiss the alleged aim of the law, protecting children from harmful online content. It is a real problem that deserves serious attention.
I don’t think we should pass laws just because there was allegedly a nice thought behind him. More reasonable protections have been in discussion for long before this entered the picture. That aside, you probably missed this, but the exact same government passed a law to convict children with adult sentences in the same week as this. You probably also missed that this same government which pledged to pass ready-to-go privacy laws at the start of its previous term has taken that off the table. There were plenty of other options that were already being deliberated to deal with your concerns, but this government is the one that has “dismissed” them, not critics of this reactionary theatre.
One good reason behind this approach is the idea that whoever makes something should be responsible for it’s maintenance- but without extra payment.
It encourages them to make it durable in the first place. If the manufacturer of an aircraft carrier has to support it throughout its whole life, it will be a much better designed ship.
It’s so weird people are talking about immorality being bad without discussing the affect on child rearing and family structure.
Are we going to be fertile our entire lives? Interesting the topic doesn’t come up much. But let’s say we are.
My parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents (etc) are still alive and producing more siblings, aunts/uncles, etc.
The phrase aunt/uncle would no longer have age implications. In terms of caregiving, my wife, mom, and grandmother might all be pregnant and raising kids at the same time.
In practice, the family tree would be flattened.
Organizations would have similar issues. I’d have to compete against developers with 500 years experience. Even with respecialization, some skills transfer.
If Shakespeare were still alive would we have an Oscar Wilde? Would it matter, since Homer is around too?
In that regard, what language would we be speaking? There are quite a few Ancient Greek speakers still kicking I guess. But Enheduanna is still here too, chanting her Babylonian Hymns to Inana on the synth I guess.
In the Altered Carbon world there are strict laws against “double sleeving”, but it happens whenever the plot benefits.
One character has an entire island of populated exclusively by herself.
They never go into why it’s illegal. I think it’s implied they know a copy isn’t the original, but they don’t want to think about it. Too unpleasant an idea.
> The CIA (and every other intelligence org.) is literally a weapon designed to operate in the grey area to fit the mandate of the policy makers and elected leadership
There is some truth, but this is how you get a crappy-ass intelligence agency.
Good intelligence agencies are focused on gathering intelligence, not performing random tasks that benefit from secrecy.
Same with drinking, etc.
Ideally there were would be well moderated sites for children, but that’s not practical.
Saying “let’s move kids out of this area so we can do grown up stuff” is totally fine. It protects children while not infringing on adults freedoms.
reply