UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

> And who gets to decide which platforms count as 'social media'?

The voting public via their elected representatives, as with literally all laws.

As we have seen, it is very easy to declare certain beliefs beyond contestation and any disagreement with them as insulting/inciting hate/etc.

That's why freedom of speech must entail the freedom to say things people find offensive, or there's no free communication of ideas at all. The state and ruling elites will determine that there is a set of proscribed ideas and a set of approved ideas and yours fall into the wrong set.

Banning speech and ideas also accelerates extremist - Weimar had very strong hate speech laws and prosecuted and imprisoned Nazis many many times. [1] The Nazis turned around and used the same laws on their enemies. Then the Stasi with similar motives used similar means. Suppressing speech in the name of order seems to be a German cultural value.

[1] https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/wo...

"The problems I mentioned aren't real, that's the point."

Can you possibly think that determining what is and is not a valid problem isn't a subjective evaluation?

Even looking at your examples, which are not chosen well for your argument. In each of these you're just shifting the burden of proof to reflect what your values. "No one has proven counter strike causes violent behavior, consuming porn makes people rapists or people can become gay." All wide-open empirical questions. Maybe none of these gets resolved in the near future; they aren't even well-formed questions. Meanwhile parents, governments, policy-makers need to make decisions. If you are very concerned about your kid being violent, you will avoid videogames even as a precautionary measure.

"The fact that some organizations (particularly religious) "

Ah you found an even easier way to resolve the issue, just ignore religious values.

If we as humans take full responsibility for the world we inhabit. It's really clear that we live inside of systems that we both control and feel that we don't. Exploitation of children is (as strange as it sounds) a design issue. We've designed systems that encourage and rationalize the exploitation of children as a feature of fear.

The encouraging part is that we are in control and it's easier to navigate with a system than to resist it, so the question becomes.

- How do we modify the incentives that are already in place to not result in the exploitation of children?

Because people generally make decisions for their best interest, we're in a dangerous situation where the incentives are for child exploitation.

An example would be: I need to feed my family I need to work to live I need to appease my boss to continue to work The boss has goals to meet We need to perform these actions to meet the goals There isn't time or space to consider the full consequences of this action When the impact to children is not considered by a change to a system, they inevitably reap the consequences of living in a system that never considered their welfare.

The children that grew up feeling out of control, and in a system not designed for them then seek to control the very system that formed them - not knowing that they're replicating the same harm that got them there.

This is a design cycle as I see it, if we don't look at it and understand it - then we will continue feeling powerless - while holding the reigns of our future in our hands.

I believe so much in the power of humanity - so I share this not with the idea that I have the answers, but that I am part of the collective that does.

Time to open a business in Roblox selling eSIMs delivered in-game through QR codes? (Assuming Roblox hasn’t been banned before we can get the MVNOs on board.)