10 ms·

You haven’t had children growing up during the last two decades have you?

by antics9 5mo ago

joe_mamba 5mo ago
In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? Look, I hate (Zuckerberg's) social media just as much as the next person and I would be happy if it were nuked from this planet, but firstly, a lot of this sudden age verification shit to "protect the children" is sus AF, leading me to assume their ulterior motives are surveillance and doxxing of anonymous online free speech, and secondly, I don't think we can put the toothpaste back in the bottle anymore similar how prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption, it just moved underground. As long as kids have smartphones, they'll find a way to use social media, or even make their own social media to organize parties, send nudes or flaunt their parents' wealth and bully the poor and ugly kids, the same way how they start drinking beer at 13 even though the legal age for that is 18. Social media amplifies the worst of human nature, but you won't be able to change human nature. Maybe governments should regulate the amount and type of data collection social media companies can have from their users, instead of regulating their users.
- ben_w 5mo ago
  > In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? FWIW, in the UK you can learn to drive a tank one year before you're allowed to learn to drive a car. Not go into combat, that's another year, I just mean the learning to drive part. Back when I myself was that age, I also got a letter published in a national newspaper pointing out the oddity that I was allowed to have sex two years before being allowed to look at photos of other people doing so. Since then, cheap cameras would also make it pertinent (though it was true even back then), that I could not have taken photos of myself performing acts I was allowed to perform.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    Yeah, my thoughts exactly. What's with this double standards of you're adult enough to drive tanks and die in a war, but not adult enough to watch porn and drink alcohol? Pick a lane government regulators. Either you're and adult and should be treated as one with full rights and responsibilities, or you're not and then shouldn't be drafted and be allowed to do anything major with your life like drink, gamble, and sign loans that will put you in debt for the next 30 years.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      Yeah, I don't get that either. I'd also want a binary "you're an adult" vs "you're a child" then we decide what belongs where, and the age is the same for everything. So once you're X, you get to fuck, drink, drive, die in wars, take loans, use social media, watch porn and whatever else we've added age limits to.
- MarsIronPI 5mo ago
  > In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? Well, that's kinda already the norm isn't it? In the US I'm allowed to go risk my life in the military but not allowed to order a beer with my pizza. It already makes no sense.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    It makes slightly more sense if you consider that whether or not you're allowed to drink on base is entirely up to the commander (at least last I heard). Also if you consider that the goal is to prevent various social ills thus there's no particular reason to expect perfect consistency.
  - rcbdev 5mo ago
    Just because the U.S.A. does it, it is by no means normal. We here are not used to such contradictory laws that arbitrarily strip us of our rights. This is also why it feels perversely inorganic and unnatural, as does all regulation that is shoved into our faces by U.S. lobbyists.
- retired 5mo ago
  In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16. In some countries you can even do that on public roads!
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    > In some countries you can even do that on public roads! I might be wrong but in the US I think it's generally anything goes on private land. Public roads would be the only relevant thing to consider. What prevents absurd situations is (IIUC) the combination of child labor laws and the need to keep your insurance policy affordable. I suppose if a parent turned his toddler loose in an excavator he might get brought up on some sort of child abuse law but honestly I doubt it. Some of the people out in the sticks teach their kindergartners to wield a shotgun and the government seems to leave them alone.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    >In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16 Are you sure that's legal? If those kids kill someone with those farm death machines, who goes to jail for it? The kid or the pearant who gave him the equipment? Will your insurance cover this?
    - kalleboo 5mo ago
      In Sweden people notoriously push the law to the extreme by modifying cars with speed limiters etc to legally count as tractors https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/when-is-a-car-not-a-car-when-its-a-swedish-a-traktor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/when-is-a-car-... > Will your insurance cover this? Yes, since it's legal
    - rcbdev 5mo ago
      Yes, it's 100% legal in multiple EU countries.
AnonymousPlanet 5mo ago
If it was organic the wording and the definitions in these legislations would be wildly different, the timing would be all over the place, the age limits and the methods to provide ID as well. But they are not. edited for tone
- austin-cheney 5mo ago
  Correlation does not imply causation. Your invented and evidence-less conspiracy theory is an insult to intelligence. I suspect you are seeing something that isn't there to account for an unspoken bias front and center in your mind.
  - gslepak 5mo ago
    People use the word "conspiracy theory" as a shield against their own ignorance. "If I don't know about it, if it sounds 'spooky' to me, it must be because it's a conspiracy theory, and therefore it is wrong," is essentially what runs through their minds. The reality is that top-down legislation is the norm rather than the exception, and there is plenty of evidence. It's not written by Joe on the street. It's not organic. It is top-down and imposed. This is what @kdheiwns rightly observes here, and in other fields like how all of a sudden every car manufacturer just up and decided simultaneously that it was a good thing to install spyware into all of their cars.
    - slg 5mo ago
      Who do you think is behind this? That is the question no one is answering here and why people are calling it a conspiracy theory. And the car manufacturers all decided to install spyware because it made them money. That's just capitalism.
      - gslepak 5mo ago
        > And the car manufacturers all decided to install spyware because it made them money. That just capitalism. Yes, you are right, it must be "capitalism" at fault. The sort of capitalism where nobody asks for the product, nobody wants the product, and yet somehow the product is the only choice you have.
Matl 5mo ago
Why am I being forced to prove to my OS that I am an adult just because of your inadequate parenting skills?
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  Wait what? How did we go from "Users of social media need to be at least 16" to "Users of OSes need to prove they are adults"?
  - Matl 5mo ago
    https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Undecided-Age-Laws https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Undecided-Age-Laws I have nothing against Instagram asking me if I am over 16, but these laws end up with my OS not allowing requests to instagram unless I prove to it that I am over 16 with a photo ID is where we're going.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      Sounds like the situation might end up with Instagram not accepting requests unless you're using an OS that follows those sorts of laws, which is kind of an inversion of what you said, and I think I'm fine with that outcome if so be it. Websites should be allowed to decide who's visiting them, unless they're government, utility or other basic needs portals.
      - Matl 5mo ago
        Fair, maybe. That'd be the better case I suppose. However that be more like banking apps not liking rooted phones. The California law is more like your OS not allowing you to access resources unless you prove your age, not the external resource doing so.
      - fc417fc802 5mo ago
        > Websites should be allowed to decide who's visiting them No, hold up, you just casually introduced a dystopian goal of facilitating the casual collection of government ID by website operators. I absolutely do not want the equivalent of South Korean ID numbers in order to do pretty much anything online. Anyway as I always point out when these threads come up we've yet to try the simple and noninvasive solution. Websites should be required to send a content categorization header. Large enterprises that fail to do so should be fined. If that were uniformly happening it would then be possible to do proper client side filtering (right now that fails miserably). Before anyone asks, app stores could be required to implement the equivalent of the header in an appropriate manner of their own design.

You haven’t had children growing up during the last two decades have you?

by antics9 5mo ago

You haven’t had children growing up during the last two decades have you?

In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? Look, I hate (Zuckerberg's) social media just as much as the next person and I would be happy if it were nuked from this planet, but firstly, a lot of this sudden age verification shit to "protect the children" is sus AF, leading me to assume their ulterior motives are surveillance and doxxing of anonymous online free speech, and secondly, I don't think we can put the toothpaste back in the bottle anymore similar how prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption, it just moved underground. As long as kids have smartphones, they'll find a way to use social media, or even make their own social media to organize parties, send nudes or flaunt their parents' wealth and bully the poor and ugly kids, the same way how they start drinking beer at 13 even though the legal age for that is 18. Social media amplifies the worst of human nature, but you won't be able to change human nature. Maybe governments should regulate the amount and type of data collection social media companies can have from their users, instead of regulating their users.

ben_w 5mo ago
> In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? FWIW, in the UK you can learn to drive a tank one year before you're allowed to learn to drive a car. Not go into combat, that's another year, I just mean the learning to drive part. Back when I myself was that age, I also got a letter published in a national newspaper pointing out the oddity that I was allowed to have sex two years before being allowed to look at photos of other people doing so. Since then, cheap cameras would also make it pertinent (though it was true even back then), that I could not have taken photos of myself performing acts I was allowed to perform.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  Yeah, my thoughts exactly. What's with this double standards of you're adult enough to drive tanks and die in a war, but not adult enough to watch porn and drink alcohol? Pick a lane government regulators. Either you're and adult and should be treated as one with full rights and responsibilities, or you're not and then shouldn't be drafted and be allowed to do anything major with your life like drink, gamble, and sign loans that will put you in debt for the next 30 years.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    Yeah, I don't get that either. I'd also want a binary "you're an adult" vs "you're a child" then we decide what belongs where, and the age is the same for everything. So once you're X, you get to fuck, drink, drive, die in wars, take loans, use social media, watch porn and whatever else we've added age limits to.
MarsIronPI 5mo ago
> In my current EU country, there's mandatory military conscription from the age of 17. And you're telling me you're only fit for social media access one year before being fit to drive tanks and shoot guns at people? Well, that's kinda already the norm isn't it? In the US I'm allowed to go risk my life in the military but not allowed to order a beer with my pizza. It already makes no sense.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  It makes slightly more sense if you consider that whether or not you're allowed to drink on base is entirely up to the commander (at least last I heard). Also if you consider that the goal is to prevent various social ills thus there's no particular reason to expect perfect consistency.
- rcbdev 5mo ago
  Just because the U.S.A. does it, it is by no means normal. We here are not used to such contradictory laws that arbitrarily strip us of our rights. This is also why it feels perversely inorganic and unnatural, as does all regulation that is shoved into our faces by U.S. lobbyists.
retired 5mo ago
In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16. In some countries you can even do that on public roads!
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  > In some countries you can even do that on public roads! I might be wrong but in the US I think it's generally anything goes on private land. Public roads would be the only relevant thing to consider. What prevents absurd situations is (IIUC) the combination of child labor laws and the need to keep your insurance policy affordable. I suppose if a parent turned his toddler loose in an excavator he might get brought up on some sort of child abuse law but honestly I doubt it. Some of the people out in the sticks teach their kindergartners to wield a shotgun and the government seems to leave them alone.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  >In most EU countries, children of farmers can drive 10 ton death machines with pointy spikes on the front from the age of 14 to 16 Are you sure that's legal? If those kids kill someone with those farm death machines, who goes to jail for it? The kid or the pearant who gave him the equipment? Will your insurance cover this?
  - kalleboo 5mo ago
    In Sweden people notoriously push the law to the extreme by modifying cars with speed limiters etc to legally count as tractors https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/when-is-a-car-not-a-car-when-its-a-swedish-a-traktor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/when-is-a-car-... > Will your insurance cover this? Yes, since it's legal
  - rcbdev 5mo ago
    Yes, it's 100% legal in multiple EU countries.

AnonymousPlanet 5mo ago

If it was organic the wording and the definitions in these legislations would be wildly different, the timing would be all over the place, the age limits and the methods to provide ID as well. But they are not. edited for tone

austin-cheney 5mo ago
Correlation does not imply causation. Your invented and evidence-less conspiracy theory is an insult to intelligence. I suspect you are seeing something that isn't there to account for an unspoken bias front and center in your mind.
- gslepak 5mo ago
  People use the word "conspiracy theory" as a shield against their own ignorance. "If I don't know about it, if it sounds 'spooky' to me, it must be because it's a conspiracy theory, and therefore it is wrong," is essentially what runs through their minds. The reality is that top-down legislation is the norm rather than the exception, and there is plenty of evidence. It's not written by Joe on the street. It's not organic. It is top-down and imposed. This is what @kdheiwns rightly observes here, and in other fields like how all of a sudden every car manufacturer just up and decided simultaneously that it was a good thing to install spyware into all of their cars.
  - slg 5mo ago
    Who do you think is behind this? That is the question no one is answering here and why people are calling it a conspiracy theory. And the car manufacturers all decided to install spyware because it made them money. That's just capitalism.
    - gslepak 5mo ago
      > And the car manufacturers all decided to install spyware because it made them money. That just capitalism. Yes, you are right, it must be "capitalism" at fault. The sort of capitalism where nobody asks for the product, nobody wants the product, and yet somehow the product is the only choice you have.

Matl 5mo ago

Why am I being forced to prove to my OS that I am an adult just because of your inadequate parenting skills?

embedding-shape 5mo ago
Wait what? How did we go from "Users of social media need to be at least 16" to "Users of OSes need to prove they are adults"?
- Matl 5mo ago
  https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Undecided-Age-Laws https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Undecided-Age-Laws I have nothing against Instagram asking me if I am over 16, but these laws end up with my OS not allowing requests to instagram unless I prove to it that I am over 16 with a photo ID is where we're going.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    Sounds like the situation might end up with Instagram not accepting requests unless you're using an OS that follows those sorts of laws, which is kind of an inversion of what you said, and I think I'm fine with that outcome if so be it. Websites should be allowed to decide who's visiting them, unless they're government, utility or other basic needs portals.
    - Matl 5mo ago
      Fair, maybe. That'd be the better case I suppose. However that be more like banking apps not liking rooted phones. The California law is more like your OS not allowing you to access resources unless you prove your age, not the external resource doing so.
    - fc417fc802 5mo ago
      > Websites should be allowed to decide who's visiting them No, hold up, you just casually introduced a dystopian goal of facilitating the casual collection of government ID by website operators. I absolutely do not want the equivalent of South Korean ID numbers in order to do pretty much anything online. Anyway as I always point out when these threads come up we've yet to try the simple and noninvasive solution. Websites should be required to send a content categorization header. Large enterprises that fail to do so should be fined. If that were uniformly happening it would then be possible to do proper client side filtering (right now that fails miserably). Before anyone asks, app stores could be required to implement the equivalent of the header in an appropriate manner of their own design.