351–360 of 655 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God, that sentence didn’t pass the sniff test, so I checked: https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/fact-check-international-d... Don’t think that the claim stands up to scrutiny, since its comparing unlike things.
Reading your link, "comparing unlike things" looks like spin to me. "It's different when we do it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need an ID to access cigarettes and liquor and porn (from a physical store)...
My parents always kept a few bottles of wine in a cabinet in the living room. If 8 year old me wanted wine, I could have drunk a whole bottle while they were away and there was no way they could have stopped me. Yet I didn't drink my parents' wine, nor did I grow up alcoholic.
You can let your kid play in traffic. You can let your kid run around with knives. Sure, but when shit hits the fan you'll be luck to pay a hefty fine and lose all social credibility you had. In the worst case you're looking at jail time. Those sort of incentives will tend to smooth these issues out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin. The current strategy of yelling "parent's should parent" does nothing to influence any sort of result. It's simply ineffective and makes people who say it look like slogan slingers rather than cooperating in any meaningful change.
> Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin. This is probably the most interesting angle of discussion I’ve seen in the past few days on this topic.
In, say, about a decade this tech bullshit will be regarded as the relentless toxic insanity that it was and we'll be better for it. Social tech CEOs will be lucky to evade prison if I had my way.
> You’re not happy about it, but you hand over a photo of your passport and hope it doesn’t come back to haunt you. I think for this argument to carry weight with voters, privacy advocates need to be much more specific about what "coming back to haunt you" looks like. They do a little bit of it later on[1], but I think most people do a rough cost benefit in their head and decide that the small benefit outweighs the s…
> privacy advocates need to be much more specific I'm starting to think we need to lean on conspiracy theories in order to get broader population on train with this - and I'm saying this in utmost regret. That's a borrowing game from a right wing/extremist playbook. Start with this: requiring IDs online is a first step in micro-chipping the population. ...or how about this: marxists/atifa/nazis/zionists/islamist/whoe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? Not on the first 2 because they're illegal for minors. Yes on the last 2. A parent can e.g. forbid their minor from being employed if it's hindering their studies. They also have a say on their romantic partner and how they interact. If rules are not followed, they can e.g. be grounded.
...yes on the last? Might be in a minority on that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Punk rock has always been right wing. Libraries are about as far from this as they can get.
The anti-authoritarian, anti-government, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist music genre punk rock? Always right wing? I mean, Nazis have always been attracted to punk because they like the loud noise but are too stupid to understand lyrics, but they tend to get their shit kicked in by punks more often than not. I don't think that's the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the part of the issue that is so frequently ignored: Anonymous age verification schemes are easily defeated through proxying because there wouldn't be any consequences for selling your tokens. "Install this app on your phone and we'll pay you $1 per day" and it will mint your anonymous identity tokens and send them off to kids who want to buy them. If there's no way to track the tokens, there is no possi…
There is a way to prevent this (or at least slow it down), but that way requires device integrity protection. With integrity protection, tokens can only be minted with a government app, driven by both biometrics and physical human hands touching the physical screen. There's no way to do it in the background. Without it, you can indeed have a single activist mint 10 billion tokens and give them out for free, defeating…
Don't get me wrong, just because it's a hypocritical headline doesn't mean it's incorrect. Just still rankles to see it, is all.