3 ms·

Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government. And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children a

Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government. And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly. Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.

mixedbit 1y ago
The government already made the call, that's why due to child privacy or other protection laws, terms of service of social media platforms require age 13 or up. My complain is that companies pretend they are unable to enforce it.
zasz 1y ago
Ahaha, by this logic we should just ban vaccines if that's popular.
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  What? I'm saying the government shouldn't be involved in bans at all. It should be up to the individual or their legal guardians.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    Yawn. Is this supposed to be charming? Principled? I don't get your shtick. People act like it's politics but it really comes off more as just being foremost disagreable and unreasonable. Jumping into a conversation about pedophiles to offer that their harms are only subjective is just ridiculous but for some reason I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to realize that was wrong.
freejazz 1y ago
>Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government. Is that what Meta's research indicated?
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  Its subjectivity is a fact, so no research required.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    Are you saying that the sexual predation of minors is not objectively harmful to them? Are you aware that the sexual solicitation of a minor is a crime?
    - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
      I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. I personally agree that it is harmful for minors up to some age. So again I would maintain it's the parents' responsibility to protect them until they reach that age.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        Do you think the sexual solicitation of minors should not be illegal? Whether or not it's the parent's responsibility to protect their own children is besides the point. It can also be true that others facilitate and turn a blind eye. I can only assume you think a party in the scenario (one who connects a child with a sexual solicitor) should bear no responsibility? Either civilly or criminally? > I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. How principled of you. Why don't you go shoot yourself in the head and report back.
        djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
        If there is sexual activity involving a minor, yes, the parents should be able to pursue criminal and civil cases. Solicitation without any actions doesn't seem that important.
        freejazz 1y ago
        Well, I'm pretty sure every state in the US disagrees with you and I'm not going to be continuing this conversation any further given that you think it's fine for adults to solicit sex from minors so long as "actions" don't happen (again, whatever the heck that actually means). I need to shower this thread off of me.

mixedbit 1y ago

The government already made the call, that's why due to child privacy or other protection laws, terms of service of social media platforms require age 13 or up. My complain is that companies pretend they are unable to enforce it.

zasz 1y ago

Ahaha, by this logic we should just ban vaccines if that's popular.

djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
What? I'm saying the government shouldn't be involved in bans at all. It should be up to the individual or their legal guardians.
- freejazz 1y ago
  Yawn. Is this supposed to be charming? Principled? I don't get your shtick. People act like it's politics but it really comes off more as just being foremost disagreable and unreasonable. Jumping into a conversation about pedophiles to offer that their harms are only subjective is just ridiculous but for some reason I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to realize that was wrong.

freejazz 1y ago

>Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government. Is that what Meta's research indicated?

djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
Its subjectivity is a fact, so no research required.
- freejazz 1y ago
  Are you saying that the sexual predation of minors is not objectively harmful to them? Are you aware that the sexual solicitation of a minor is a crime?
  - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
    I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. I personally agree that it is harmful for minors up to some age. So again I would maintain it's the parents' responsibility to protect them until they reach that age.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      Do you think the sexual solicitation of minors should not be illegal? Whether or not it's the parent's responsibility to protect their own children is besides the point. It can also be true that others facilitate and turn a blind eye. I can only assume you think a party in the scenario (one who connects a child with a sexual solicitor) should bear no responsibility? Either civilly or criminally? > I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. How principled of you. Why don't you go shoot yourself in the head and report back.
      - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
        If there is sexual activity involving a minor, yes, the parents should be able to pursue criminal and civil cases. Solicitation without any actions doesn't seem that important.
        freejazz 1y ago
        Well, I'm pretty sure every state in the US disagrees with you and I'm not going to be continuing this conversation any further given that you think it's fine for adults to solicit sex from minors so long as "actions" don't happen (again, whatever the heck that actually means). I need to shower this thread off of me.