2 ms·
You do not want to live in a world where that's normalized. There are legal processes for determining when somebody's "vulnerable" enough to need a guardian. Th
by Hizonner 1y ago
You do not want to live in a world where that's normalized. There are legal processes for determining when somebody's "vulnerable" enough to need a guardian. Those process are heavy and strict for a damned good reason. And sometimes still not strict enough.
- gumby271 1y agoIf I'm drunk and give my friend my car keys and ask them to not let me do anything stupid, I'm not giving up my legal rights to autonomy. I don't think this is any different. Legal guardianship is entirely unrelated, unless we're having some slippery slope fun.
- Hizonner 1y agoSo you expect aging parents to actively ask their children to put controls on their devices, and not to reverse that decision when it matters most? Many, probably most, of the people most at risk aren't going to do that. When you're (somewhat) drunk, you know that you're drunk, and you're still able to comprehend how that will slow down your reactions while driving. When you're being scammed, you think you're right... and if you begin to doubt that, you may tend to push the thought out of your mind rather than follow it through, and to evade things that might bring it back. And it's very hard to admit to yourself that you're permanently impaired in that sort of way... especially when you're impaired in that sort of way.
- gumby271 1y agoI'm expecting us that come up with something better than "give all computing control to two US companies" Yes this idea has flaws that you're an expert at picking at, but there's gotta be some middle ground that doesn't treat all of us as the most tech illiterate or scammable people.