8 ms·

No such mandates should take place at all.

Bender 4mo ago
I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions that keep the control on the client side and do not share data. Any data shared can and will be abused, leaked, sold, stolen without consequence.
- yetta 4mo ago
  No we aren't. Also you can put toothpaste in tubes or it wouldn't be in there. Hope that helps!
- AdrianB1 4mo ago
  I heard that lie about "sensible restrictions" so many times, now I am waiting for "sensible violence", "sensible beating to death" and so on. It is a false argument that "there will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions", what you can do is recognize that "no restrictions is an option". It is like negotiating with a terrorist that wants to kill you and this is his starting position and then he wants to agree on some compromise, like seriously beating you. There is no negotiation.
  - Bender 4mo ago
    No harm in pushing for no restrictions at all. I support this idea.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    > now I am waiting for "sensible violence" That exists and is called "self defense", no?
- shevy-java 4mo ago
  We are not past the point at all. Any democracy can ultimately decide on laws and regulation. Why would you wish to insinuate otherwise here? California could easily decide to not implement such laws, for instance. That data leaks out is always a given. So, gather less data. Ideally none. But this is not a discussion about data. This is a discussion as to what state actors think they are allowed to do. It is an attack on private life of people. See the combined strike against VPNs.
  - Bender 4mo ago
    We are not past the point at all. I can only hope you are correct.
  - hunterpayne 4mo ago
    Please remember that there are CA state policies that the voters voted to overturn (in a referendum) and the current CA state government refuses to do so. California voters decided. The California government un-democratically decided to ignore the voters against their own laws they themselves passed. PS I'm referring to bail reform here. PPS Just trying to frame what the CA government thinks its allowed to do which is apparently anything it wants.
- hansvm 4mo ago
  > toothpaste out of the tube Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2521/ https://xkcd.com/2521/
- saghm 4mo ago
  How and when did we decide that we were past that point? I don't remember being consulted
mikestorrent 4mo ago
I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe. but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something like this?
- malicka 4mo ago
  You could block the default DoH services for Firefox, I reckon.
- grim_io 4mo ago
  Well, you can't. Like no past generation could stop their kids.
  - dylan604 4mo ago
    Just like no past generation had so much information so readily available. One quick quip can always be rebutted by another quick quip, but it doesn't really move the conversation along in any meaningful manner.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > no past generation could stop their kids Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol. A gate doesn’t have to be 100% effective to have net benefits.
    - kelseyfrog 4mo ago
      If one kid is able to bypass the system it means it's zero percent effective. Same thing with alcohol, and cigarettes. Especially if it means I have to show my ID to buy those things.
      - smelendez 4mo ago
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- bijowo1676 4mo ago
  only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > only parents can decide for their own children Voters are collectively deciding for all of our children. And there are absolutely group dynamics that require cooperation. It’s why rich communities ban phones in classrooms while in poor communities, the one family that tries doing it alone is probably going to be less successful. Again, I’m not saying you’re fundamentally wrong. Just that this debate has been had and the polling is massively in favor of bans for under-14 year olds and strongly in favor for under-18s. (And to the degree I’ve connected with electeds, the folks calling in and writing were almost 100% one way. The civically-engaged electorate is practically at consensus.)
    - bitwize 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > Lolberts Huh?
anigbrowl 4mo ago
Filed with nobody should be bad and essential services should be free
jrmg 4mo ago
Are you also against age limits for the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, pornography etc?
harshreality 4mo ago
A lot of us who grew up pre-social-media agree in principle. What it fails to account for is that today's internet is qualitatively different from the pre-social-media, pre-smartphone internet. The vast majority of the internet audience, too, is qualitatively different. Incentives are misaligned for an average parent who might want to keep a tight leash on smartphone internet access for their kids, when attempting to do so will generate fierce opposition from their kids and leave them socially out of the loop.
- reddalo 4mo ago
  People also wanted to smoke cigarettes but they got fierce opposition from their parents. That's what parents should do. Maybe we should teach parents how to be parents instead of imposing draconian age checks (read: mass surveillance).
  - infinitezest 4mo ago
    Aren't there laws against selling tobacco to minors? And advertising to them? Your analogy is supporting the opposite conclusion.
    - iamalizard 4mo ago
      In some countries they scan you ID and likely keep it some database when you buy drugs or enter bars or clubs. In others they just look at your ID card if you don't look old enough. The first example is bad, the second is tolerable. But the reason most kids don't smoke is that the parents and the teachers instilled in them that it was bad. If a kid wants to smoke or drink, they can surely get an older friend or a friend of a friend to sell them the cigarettes or alcohol. Anyone can buy 20 bottles of hard liquor and 50 packs of cigarettes, sell them to a 15 year old who can then sell them to their friends. That doesn't happen often not because a surprise police raid will show up and bust the seller but because there isn't enough demand. If there is demand from the kids and the parents don't care, kids will get their hands on drugs. Maybe not 9 year olds but certainly the teens.
burnte 4mo ago
This is correct. It is not the government's job to raise our children. The more we ask the gov't to do that we should do, the less power we actually have. Some will say this ship has sailed, well, I say it's not too late to sink it.
- throwawayqqq11 4mo ago
  I am sick of these "government bad" takes. They lack constructive suggestions, like your "sink it" nugget, they lack decent problem descriptions, as if anything after the sinking (likely private governance, aka feudalism) is immune to the ills of big-gov, and on top perpetuate reductivist arguments as if any kind of restrictions of freedom is by definition bad. This broad rejection without good reasons is borderline sociopathic. ... and parental control is not the gov raising anyone.
  - forgetfreeman 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - hunterpayne 4mo ago
      Your post says far more about you than libertarians. Remember, every time you give the government a power, you are creating an avenue for corruption and by design putting someone who probably isn't qualified in charge of decisions they lack the experience to make reliably. There you go, a simple argument that increasing government power has a drawback that you never consider. And that's why you post says more about you than anything. Such an extreme position is impossible to defend and anytime you try either a) the person you are debating isn't very skilled at debating or b) you are just being stubborn and ignoring facts and arguments you don't like. I suspect its B.
      - forgetfreeman 4mo ago
        And every time you remove legislation you open up entire new vistas of corporate depravity and as the last 40 years have comprehensively demonstrated, "market forces" are not a viable replacement for legislation. Increasing government power is a liability only and solely when folks make a habit of electing incompetents and the corrupt. Governance as a concept is fine, what you're actually arguing for is better politicians.

I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions that keep the control on the client side and do not share data. Any data shared can and will be abused, leaked, sold, stolen without consequence.

yetta 4mo ago
No we aren't. Also you can put toothpaste in tubes or it wouldn't be in there. Hope that helps!
AdrianB1 4mo ago
I heard that lie about "sensible restrictions" so many times, now I am waiting for "sensible violence", "sensible beating to death" and so on. It is a false argument that "there will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions", what you can do is recognize that "no restrictions is an option". It is like negotiating with a terrorist that wants to kill you and this is his starting position and then he wants to agree on some compromise, like seriously beating you. There is no negotiation.
- Bender 4mo ago
  No harm in pushing for no restrictions at all. I support this idea.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  > now I am waiting for "sensible violence" That exists and is called "self defense", no?
shevy-java 4mo ago
We are not past the point at all. Any democracy can ultimately decide on laws and regulation. Why would you wish to insinuate otherwise here? California could easily decide to not implement such laws, for instance. That data leaks out is always a given. So, gather less data. Ideally none. But this is not a discussion about data. This is a discussion as to what state actors think they are allowed to do. It is an attack on private life of people. See the combined strike against VPNs.
- Bender 4mo ago
  We are not past the point at all. I can only hope you are correct.
- hunterpayne 4mo ago
  Please remember that there are CA state policies that the voters voted to overturn (in a referendum) and the current CA state government refuses to do so. California voters decided. The California government un-democratically decided to ignore the voters against their own laws they themselves passed. PS I'm referring to bail reform here. PPS Just trying to frame what the CA government thinks its allowed to do which is apparently anything it wants.
hansvm 4mo ago
> toothpaste out of the tube Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2521/ https://xkcd.com/2521/
saghm 4mo ago
How and when did we decide that we were past that point? I don't remember being consulted

mikestorrent 4mo ago

I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe. but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something like this?

malicka 4mo ago
You could block the default DoH services for Firefox, I reckon.
grim_io 4mo ago
Well, you can't. Like no past generation could stop their kids.
- dylan604 4mo ago
  Just like no past generation had so much information so readily available. One quick quip can always be rebutted by another quick quip, but it doesn't really move the conversation along in any meaningful manner.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > no past generation could stop their kids Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol. A gate doesn’t have to be 100% effective to have net benefits.
  - kelseyfrog 4mo ago
    If one kid is able to bypass the system it means it's zero percent effective. Same thing with alcohol, and cigarettes. Especially if it means I have to show my ID to buy those things.
    - smelendez 4mo ago

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
bijowo1676 4mo ago
only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > only parents can decide for their own children Voters are collectively deciding for all of our children. And there are absolutely group dynamics that require cooperation. It’s why rich communities ban phones in classrooms while in poor communities, the one family that tries doing it alone is probably going to be less successful. Again, I’m not saying you’re fundamentally wrong. Just that this debate has been had and the polling is massively in favor of bans for under-14 year olds and strongly in favor for under-18s. (And to the degree I’ve connected with electeds, the folks calling in and writing were almost 100% one way. The civically-engaged electorate is practically at consensus.)
  - bitwize 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > Lolberts Huh?

anigbrowl 4mo ago

Filed with nobody should be bad and essential services should be free

jrmg 4mo ago

Are you also against age limits for the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, pornography etc?

harshreality 4mo ago

A lot of us who grew up pre-social-media agree in principle. What it fails to account for is that today's internet is qualitatively different from the pre-social-media, pre-smartphone internet. The vast majority of the internet audience, too, is qualitatively different. Incentives are misaligned for an average parent who might want to keep a tight leash on smartphone internet access for their kids, when attempting to do so will generate fierce opposition from their kids and leave them socially out of the loop.

reddalo 4mo ago
People also wanted to smoke cigarettes but they got fierce opposition from their parents. That's what parents should do. Maybe we should teach parents how to be parents instead of imposing draconian age checks (read: mass surveillance).
- infinitezest 4mo ago
  Aren't there laws against selling tobacco to minors? And advertising to them? Your analogy is supporting the opposite conclusion.
  - iamalizard 4mo ago
    In some countries they scan you ID and likely keep it some database when you buy drugs or enter bars or clubs. In others they just look at your ID card if you don't look old enough. The first example is bad, the second is tolerable. But the reason most kids don't smoke is that the parents and the teachers instilled in them that it was bad. If a kid wants to smoke or drink, they can surely get an older friend or a friend of a friend to sell them the cigarettes or alcohol. Anyone can buy 20 bottles of hard liquor and 50 packs of cigarettes, sell them to a 15 year old who can then sell them to their friends. That doesn't happen often not because a surprise police raid will show up and bust the seller but because there isn't enough demand. If there is demand from the kids and the parents don't care, kids will get their hands on drugs. Maybe not 9 year olds but certainly the teens.

burnte 4mo ago

This is correct. It is not the government's job to raise our children. The more we ask the gov't to do that we should do, the less power we actually have. Some will say this ship has sailed, well, I say it's not too late to sink it.

throwawayqqq11 4mo ago
I am sick of these "government bad" takes. They lack constructive suggestions, like your "sink it" nugget, they lack decent problem descriptions, as if anything after the sinking (likely private governance, aka feudalism) is immune to the ills of big-gov, and on top perpetuate reductivist arguments as if any kind of restrictions of freedom is by definition bad. This broad rejection without good reasons is borderline sociopathic. ... and parental control is not the gov raising anyone.
- forgetfreeman 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hunterpayne 4mo ago
    Your post says far more about you than libertarians. Remember, every time you give the government a power, you are creating an avenue for corruption and by design putting someone who probably isn't qualified in charge of decisions they lack the experience to make reliably. There you go, a simple argument that increasing government power has a drawback that you never consider. And that's why you post says more about you than anything. Such an extreme position is impossible to defend and anytime you try either a) the person you are debating isn't very skilled at debating or b) you are just being stubborn and ignoring facts and arguments you don't like. I suspect its B.
    - forgetfreeman 4mo ago
      And every time you remove legislation you open up entire new vistas of corporate depravity and as the last 40 years have comprehensively demonstrated, "market forces" are not a viable replacement for legislation. Increasing government power is a liability only and solely when folks make a habit of electing incompetents and the corrupt. Governance as a concept is fine, what you're actually arguing for is better politicians.