581–590 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I wouldn't. I'm just wondering if we have to accept the consequences for children or if there's some alternative solution.
How do you propose that social media sites verify your age without showing them your ID?
Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.
The problem is that once such a thing fails, it gives massive ammunition to future naysayers that get to conveniently ignore all the implementation failures because campaigning for/against will ultimately boil down to bullet points.
I disagree to an extent. Oregons drug decriminalization failed because of a few reasons that are plain to see:
- The people who wrote the measure did not prescribe how it should be done, just what it should achieve.
- The measure demanded changes be immediate, which didn't jive with a very slow running, heavy bureaucracy like Oregons government. More importantly, time was not given for the social services pipelines to fill with cash and plans.
- The law did not also ban public drug use, it depended on the legislature doing this - which they never did. This was the big tipping point. You don't forget the smell of meth or fent, especially outside your grocery store or kids school.
This was a master class in when head in the clouds thinking meets legislative elites who are outright insulted when the people flex their voice.
I do think we'll revisit this again in the future, but hopefully next time we at least ban public drug use.
Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.
> Let the experiment take place, I say. I think the experiment is more about the judiciary and about tribal politics. There's ample case law against something like this, so to me this seems unconstitutional, and I doubt it will stand. But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Regardless of anyone's views about social media, the…
I think it’s excellent the government is taking a stand to protect kids when it’s obvious most parents are unable to. Kids have no business in the discourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's better to not have any data and live in continued ignorance?
It’s better to have no data than one high-profile poorly-executed experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.
Would you mind expanding that? I always assumed that renting, lending or buying anything constitutes a contract technically.
I was thinking more about sports clubs, or things like the scouts or church groups. Sure, the payment side requires parental supervision but none of them operate under dracionan "accept our legalese or we won't let you play"-style rules. There's a lot of difference between "we have an implicit contract that's based around common values" and "we deny you access unless you agree to be exploited".
I felt that the blanket statement "it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract with a minor anyway" was implying that therefore young people should have no agency. That's probably not what the GP meant, but I thought it needed stating explicitly that we do expect children/teenagers/adolescents to gradually take more control over their own life, and that we do expect society to allow for that.
I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that. I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet. This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for thi…
Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much d…
I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that. I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet. This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for thi…
Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much d…
Better for who?
Any system secure enough that a person could never face consequences for posting something unpopular would also be incapable of accomplishing the goal of censoring things online that are considered "bad".
You say that even our current pseudo-anonymous communication enables "extremism" but any system that would prevent it could be used to stop a whistleblower, or a protestor, or an atheist, or anyone else with an unpopular opinion. I don't see that as making the internet better, and I question how much it would even stop the things most people today would agree to want abolished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about them? They’re not being forced into that, most are having to fight tooth and nail to be heard and to get access to the treatment. You very clearly have no idea what’s going on with trans kids. Modern trans healthcare has nothing to do with people in the past being sterilized as punishment. OTOH, this law is actually being forced on minors, even if they’re not in what you consider a punishable minority. Als…
This is a hilariously backwards and slightly scary take. "If you aren't X you can't care about Y or you are a Z." is basically a huge logical fallacy. Insulting people because they care about things that affect them indirectly but not directly is pathetic and you should feel terrible. We all live in the same world that connects, we actually do have to deal with outer spheres of responsibility eventually.
It seems like a much more expansive and reasonable list than you described as being a "logical fallacy"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By not having this law and doing it client side. My opinion is the law is bad.
This law might have never come up if we had better parental controls at every level of the software and hardware stack. I'm a parent I have parent controls setup on my child's devices but it's very hard to dial it in properly and cover all the bases. It should be far more straight forward to manage than it is now. I'm obviously pretty tech savvy and I would say 99% of parents are not going to get this right.
I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that. I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet. This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for thi…
Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much d…
Our local newspaper used to allow people to comment on stories with a Facebook account. People who were using real names and had publicly posted enough information that you'd be able to quickly locate where they lived frequently went on extreme rants.
The newspaper eventually just got rid of Facebook-powered comments, but I see the same behavior (terrible comments under real names, easily linked to employers/homes/schools) on the neighborhood's Nextdoor discussions.