321–330 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could transfer the account after age verification too. Isn't that what I said?
Yes, but you also said it's a CYA, when indeed it's not sufficient CYA if only a former account owner, but not "this account owner," had been verified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t forget the second amendment.
I don't understand your point. Can you quote the part of the second amendment that specifically addresses children, or schools for that matter?
This is common for opponents of the second amendment as well. "Think of the children!" etc etc.
The uncomfortable part is that they try to solve a real problem (protecting minors) by requiring universal identification. In practice this means every adult has to prove who they are just to access any part of the internet. Once that infrastructure exists, it’s hard to imagine it not expanding beyond its original purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your point. Can you quote the part of the second amendment that specifically addresses children, or schools for that matter?
> Sob stories about children are always weaponized for oppression. This is common for opponents of the second amendment as well. "Think of the children!" etc etc.
Reducing the number of guns doesn't solve the root issue (which I think we'd also agree on), but it should minimize the harms while being dramatically easier than changing the American ethos. Hell, America could likely get 80% of the results (no school shootings) with 20% of the effort (additional restrictions on firearms, more akin to Canada)
I further think the second amendment is causing Americans more harm than it's worth, though that's a seperate discussion; some examples include suicide statistics, accidental discharge, a lack of protection even when carried legally (such as in Alex Pretti's murder) and the fact that, when firearms could be anywhere, police must treat every interaction as potentially fatal - with all the force that requires
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Trust" in this situation is a weasel word for surveillance Is all security a weasel word for surveillance? You answer a valid argument with a meme. It is very unproductive. How do you suggest to disallow children access to pornography, harmful content, etc? Or are you arguing that any solution is worse than the harm that bad actors in search of money and political gain are doing to children?
> Is all security a weasel word for surveillance? If the security asks you to "trust them"? Yeah, that's usually pretext for hidden abuse. When the Wizard of Oz says "pay no attention to the man behind that curtain" then you don't look the other way. Trust is unnecessary in situations where transparency is demanded. Accepting "trust" is equivalent to accepting every single abuse of the technology, up to and including…
In my country TV has always been regulated. Pornographic movies could only be shown at late hours, there was no data gathering nor targeted ads, and nobody could reach children privately thru TV.
Not all parents have the means and time to be with their children all the time. There is a bare minimum of children safety that we need to guarantee as a society.
Many children grew up watching TV unattended without risk of being sexually harassed or radicalized. And with time children shows became even better and with less ads for toys and so. Regulating TV was great to achieve a better live for everyone.
> reeks of the Catholic moms protesting HBO,
Different country, different culture. You are applying American logic to non-American concerns.
> If you want to enrich and entertain your kids without exposing them to topics you consider unsavory, buy them a book instead of an iPad. It's not rocket science.
That way all responsibility is on the parents while big corporations increase the pressure on children to keep consuming their content. I prefer a world where criminal behavior is punished instead of blaming the victims for not avoiding the danger.
The tiktok/youtube recommendation algorithms will undoubtedly cause more harm to minors than wandering onto an adult website and learning about how babies are made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ditching first past the poles and mitigating gerrymandering would also obviously help. Mitigating gerrymandering is a lost cause with first past the post because someone has to draw the lines and whoever is in the majority at the time is going to find a way to benefit themselves. It's especially hard because in a state which is e.g. 60% for one party, drawing the lines in a "normal" way can pretty easily result in…
With scoring isn't the logical play to score your favorite the highest and zero out everyone else? Then it just devolves to fptp.
And even doing that is people being too clever by half.
Imagine there are three candidates. The one you prefer is polling at a score of 6/10, another that you like almost as much is also polling at 6/10 and a third that you very much don't like is polling at 4/10. If you were voting honestly you'd give the first candidate 10/10, the second 8/10 and the third 1/10. So what should you do if you're voting strategically?
If you do the one that devolves to approval voting you give the first two candidates 10/10. But that's pretty dumb, the third candidate was just barely in the race and all you're doing then is screwing yourself by giving your second choice a better chance against your first choice.
If you do the one that devolves to FPTP you're really screwing yourself, because then you're putting the third candidate, which you hate, back in the running by tanking the chances of the second candidate that you were pretty okay with. You're making it so if your first choice doesn't win you get your third choice, which is bad for you, because the amount you wanted the first to win over the second is much smaller than the amount you wanted the second to win over the third but then you foolishly failed to express that even though the voting system allowed you to.
You can find some "proofs" that giving every candidate either a 1/10 or 10/10 is the optimal strategy, but the thing those proofs take as an assumption is that you know exactly how everyone else is going to vote, i.e. you have perfectly 100% accurate infallible polls. Which, of course, you don't.
And then think about what you have to do with that second candidate you'd like to give 8/10: Under that logic you're "required" to either give them 10/10 or 1/10. But you can't be sure if giving the second candidate a 1/10 will cause the first candidate to win or the third. Without knowing that, you can't know which one is actually better for you.
At which point the optimal strategy is to hedge by picking a number in the middle, and choose which one in proportion to how strongly you feel about each risk. But that's the same as voting according to your actual preferences! You end up giving the second candidate 8/10 because that's the measure of how much more you prefer that they defeat the third candidate than that they don't defeat the first.
The only real strategic choice here is to put some consideration of the polling into the weighting. If Hitler is on the ballot then you're definitely giving him the lowest score, but if he's only polling at 2/10 and you're pretty sure he's not going to win, you might want to give someone else you only moderately disfavor a 3/10 rather than 5/10 because you're not that worried about the probability of Hitler defeating them even if you're very worried about the consequences if it happened. But you still don't want to give them the same score as you give Hitler because you still want to hedge at least a little bit against even a small chance of something that bad.