3 ms·
On one hand, it is absolutely the responsibility of parents to raise their children. But on the other hand if children using a service is reliably and consiste
by colonelspace 2y ago
On one hand, it is absolutely the responsibility of parents to raise their children.
But on the other hand if children using a service is reliably and consistently resulting in negative outcomes for the children and their families, it seems reasonable to suggest something should be done. And that something could be 'companies don't provide chat bots that allude to children murdering their parents'.
Taking a legally or logically 'correct' position on something when it's actively harming people isn't really a morally defensible position in my mind.
- xvector 2y agoShould porn sites shut down because "children using [the] service is reliably and consistently resulting in negative outcomes for the children and their families"?
- colonelspace 2y agoThis "whataboutism" is actually quite good for illuminating my perspective: If it could be proved that porn sites are overwhelmingly a net negative for society, would you agree that they should all be shut down?
- fluoridation 2y agoYour answer to the question is to repeat the question back?
- colonelspace 2y agoIt's actually a different question that superficially reads as the same question.
- xvector 2y agoNo, because I don't agree with the government controlling what I can watch. There is a cost to freedom. I don't need a nanny state to live a full life.
- colonelspace 2y agoSo, where's the line? Or are you saying that there is literally nothing you consider acceptable to outlaw when it comes to what you're allowed to watch?
- xvector 2y agoIllegal content, perhaps. I don't know. But what I do know is that the line definitely shouldn't be drawn at porn, alcohol, or immature AI chatbots.
- colonelspace 2y agoQ: What do you think should not be legal? A: Illegal things. Seems this exchange has run its course.
- nemomarx 2y agoWe could extend this to a lot of stuff - bars serving alcohol is reliably and consistently giving negative outcomes, right? People get drunk and beat their wives or kids pretty often, they get in crashes, they drink away their liver. Do we ban that?
- prewett 2y agoI'm sure you're aware of Prohibition, but yes, we did ban that. Didn't work very well, though, and we unbanned it (with a minimum age limit). When smoking's health problems became well-known we only banned advertising (and maybe selling to minors?), so maybe we still remembered the lesson from Prohibition.