3 ms·

If one or two children are effected it’s the parents fault, when all children are statistically impacted in a negative way it’s systemic and is the fault of org

If one or two children are effected it’s the parents fault, when all children are statistically impacted in a negative way it’s systemic and is the fault of organization.

LinuxBender 4y ago
This may be the case but I would rather not spend tax money playing whack-a-mole with businesses thus artificially creating new revenue models for lawyers. I would rather just put a technical solution in place that empowers good parents to have some control over their own devices and let them decide when their small children are somewhat psychologically armed to handle the internet. RTA headers do not require integration with any third party sites and does not add tracking or additional identification. Sunak and others have been pushing for rules that would require sites to use third party identification sites. This is a non-starter for me personally. It is very obvious to me someones pockets are getting lined by people interested in adding more tracking to the internet. I see this as the UK trying to extend its CCTV system to the rest of the world but perhaps I am a bit skeptical after watching the behavior of governments for many decades. It is also a bit curious that US politicians have also been pushing for this at the same time. These recent events really smell like a startup trying to get funded by multiple governments. Investors love government contracts because they are usually multi-year and get written into policy. In terms of disciplining parents that neglect their children there is already a system in place for this. The first time should be an infraction that requires the parent to do an online training course. Perhaps under extreme circumstances a misdemeanor and at some point social services step in just like in any other repeat neglect case. In reality this should not affect most parents. There should not be any jail involved unless the parents are intentionally putting the children in harms way such as encouraging the kids to pose nude for strangers and inviting said strangers over.
maxk42 4y ago
Or it's a societal problem. Don't discount the ability of society at large to make dumb mistakes. Is it really Coca Cola's fault your kids are fat?
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  > "Is it really Coca Cola's fault your kids are fat?" Yes. https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617 https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617 "Early in my career, I consulted for Coke to ensure sugar taxes failed and soda was included in food stamp funding. I say Coke's policies are evil because I saw inside the room. The first step in playbook was paying the NAACP + other civil rights groups to call opponents racist[...]The conversations inside these rooms was depressingly transactional: "We (Coke) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist."" "watched as the FDA funneled money to professors at leading universities - as well as think tanks on the left and right - to create studies showing soda taxes hurt the poor. They also paid for studies that say drinking soda DIDN'T cause obesity."
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    In my opinion corporations that lobby/bribe to harm people should be handled differently than the internet censorship issue. In those cases I believe that such entities and all related parties should be considered a domestic terrorist and anyone that lobbied for them or any politician that took said bribes should be branded as aiding and abetting a domestic terrorist. There are already laws on the books for handling such people. If the offending company is international then it is no longer just domestic. Why domestic terrorist? Easy, they are intentionally harming people for profit. The mortality impact is very slow but there is a myriad of scientific data to prove the harm. Just type-2 diabetes alone may bankrupt most first world countries [1]. [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-repor... (2017) [this has only gotten worse]
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Coca Cola's corporate propaganda is ubiquitous. They certainly are not innocent.

If one or two children are effected it’s the parents fault, when all children are statistically impacted in a negative way it’s systemic and is the fault of organization.

LinuxBender 4y ago

This may be the case but I would rather not spend tax money playing whack-a-mole with businesses thus artificially creating new revenue models for lawyers. I would rather just put a technical solution in place that empowers good parents to have some control over their own devices and let them decide when their small children are somewhat psychologically armed to handle the internet. RTA headers do not require integration with any third party sites and does not add tracking or additional identification. Sunak and others have been pushing for rules that would require sites to use third party identification sites. This is a non-starter for me personally. It is very obvious to me someones pockets are getting lined by people interested in adding more tracking to the internet. I see this as the UK trying to extend its CCTV system to the rest of the world but perhaps I am a bit skeptical after watching the behavior of governments for many decades. It is also a bit curious that US politicians have also been pushing for this at the same time. These recent events really smell like a startup trying to get funded by multiple governments. Investors love government contracts because they are usually multi-year and get written into policy. In terms of disciplining parents that neglect their children there is already a system in place for this. The first time should be an infraction that requires the parent to do an online training course. Perhaps under extreme circumstances a misdemeanor and at some point social services step in just like in any other repeat neglect case. In reality this should not affect most parents. There should not be any jail involved unless the parents are intentionally putting the children in harms way such as encouraging the kids to pose nude for strangers and inviting said strangers over.

maxk42 4y ago

Or it's a societal problem. Don't discount the ability of society at large to make dumb mistakes. Is it really Coca Cola's fault your kids are fat?

jodrellblank 4y ago
> "Is it really Coca Cola's fault your kids are fat?" Yes. https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617 https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617 "Early in my career, I consulted for Coke to ensure sugar taxes failed and soda was included in food stamp funding. I say Coke's policies are evil because I saw inside the room. The first step in playbook was paying the NAACP + other civil rights groups to call opponents racist[...]The conversations inside these rooms was depressingly transactional: "We (Coke) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist."" "watched as the FDA funneled money to professors at leading universities - as well as think tanks on the left and right - to create studies showing soda taxes hurt the poor. They also paid for studies that say drinking soda DIDN'T cause obesity."
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  In my opinion corporations that lobby/bribe to harm people should be handled differently than the internet censorship issue. In those cases I believe that such entities and all related parties should be considered a domestic terrorist and anyone that lobbied for them or any politician that took said bribes should be branded as aiding and abetting a domestic terrorist. There are already laws on the books for handling such people. If the offending company is international then it is no longer just domestic. Why domestic terrorist? Easy, they are intentionally harming people for profit. The mortality impact is very slow but there is a myriad of scientific data to prove the harm. Just type-2 diabetes alone may bankrupt most first world countries [1]. [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-repor... (2017) [this has only gotten worse]
LarryMullins 4y ago
Coca Cola's corporate propaganda is ubiquitous. They certainly are not innocent.