11–20 of 180 posts
This is probably for the best. I’m fine saying “think of the children” when you’re talking about … children. There’s really bad stuff out there. Think of the children.
But we shouldn't let them view user generated content?
Seems inconsistent at best.
Sorry for the snark, but could I change my age to 17 to get access to this? Sounds like a dream feature.
Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." the elites don't want "unapproved" ideas getting into the minds of malleable youth...shaping the minds of youth is solely the province of our benevolent elites...
A lot of parents don't want unapproved media to reach their kids. If something like this passes, it's going to be at least because of parental support.
EDIT: There’s a case to be made for it! The Internet, especially social media, is as powerful as illicit drugs and probably impacts development. But IMHO, this should be up to parents to decide, and I think the lawmakers probably have no clue the extent of this kind of rule would be.
>The bill would eliminate minors’ access to any algorithmically generated navigation aids, such as “top content” and “hot items” lists. It would also eliminate home pages that are algorithmically organized, whether personalized to individual users or not, which would be replaced by a list of items presented chronologically (presumably in reverse chronological order if allowed because chronological order prioritizes t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of parents don't want unapproved media to reach their kids. If something like this passes, it's going to be at least because of parental support.
Funny thing is that I guarantee a lot of the parents in support of dumb shit like this lose their minds at sexual education classes in public schools. Just shows that most people don't have the IQ necessary to be competent parents.
1) We should have school districts teaching _Republican_ ideals because the local schools support it.
2) We should have school districts teaching _Democrat_ ideals because the local schools support it.
3) No to both 1 and 2.
You simply can't have it both ways, therefore the reasonable option is to say no to both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of parents don't want unapproved media to reach their kids. If something like this passes, it's going to be at least because of parental support.
Funny thing is that I guarantee a lot of the parents in support of dumb shit like this lose their minds at sexual education classes in public schools. Just shows that most people don't have the IQ necessary to be competent parents.
Anyways, lots of people and religions have wildly different ideas on the sanctity (or lack of sanctity) of sex. Some people don't like it when a public school decides to teach their child something different. Whether that's a school teaching that heterosexual monogamy is the one true way, or homosexualism or polygamy or whatever. People have very different opinions on this and that's OK.