4 ms·

No. My question was not why am I forced to pay, my question was why should I pay. Obviously if I have to pay, I will (that's a logical necessity, because if I c

No. My question was not why am I forced to pay, my question was why should I pay. Obviously if I have to pay, I will (that's a logical necessity, because if I could avoid it then it was untrue that I had to, to begin with). Why should I pay? That is to say, by what mechanism am I saddled with the moral responsibility that justifies me having to spend my money to protect someone else's children? Given your line of argumentation, I'm going to guess that you don't have an answer to this question; your answer is that I should GFMS and just pay. Prove me wrong.

intended 4mo ago
This is orbiting the issue of personal responsibility and social burdens. I get the impression that you recognize that there are certain costs that are distributed on members of a society, because it is the least problematic way to address some collective action issue. You could migrate to the libertarian ideal, if that is what suits you. if this counts as GFMS, I sadly don’t mean in it those terms. I dont know you well enough to know what specific harms would matter to your wellbeing. It could range from what the state of the next voting cohort will be. It could range from having a social environment of better adjusted adults creating art, science or just relationships that will impact you as you age. It’s more capacity for families, mental resilience and less dead weight loss of kids getting trapped into emotional tar pits. It’s a signal that as a society we don’t want to see our kids addicted, and that if we impose such costs on ourselves, we will impose heavier costs on the perpetrators. There is a reckoning with social media and addictive design that is to be had; this is a step on that path. It makes it easier for parents who are struggling, and reduces harm to kids and teens. It may give us a way to deal with the absolute scourge of non consensual intimate imagery. I’ve personally had to flag and remove stuff of that nature, and even in a country like america, that kind of content is life ending. In a religiously conservative country, that can lead to much, much worse. However this is a smorgasbord of ills that society as a whole is struggling to deal with. You are a standing member of that society. I don’t know you well enough to make a case that makes sense. I will add, You also don’t look to be a passive member of society, so you are doubly screwed. You get the bonus burden of having to think about how to solve the problem in the best manner possible.
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  >It could range from [...] as a whole is struggling to deal with. I thought you said you read the thread. You've fallen into the same mistake CPLX has made. You're answering why children should be protected. I've already granted that premise, there's no need to argue for it. My question was why people who don't have children should bear the burden of that protection instead of their parents. If a more concrete question would help, why should all adults pay to be able to prove that they're adults (just to be able to retain a freedom they already had, I should add), instead of being given that ability for free by the government, and the government collecting the costs of the program from parents?
  - intended 4mo ago
    So I don’t have kids, and I have worked in trust and safety. As stated, society is finding a sub optimal solution for a person in a narrow read of my situation. I (and you) are impacted by the second order effects of the decision to do something or to do nothing. Our freedoms do not exist in a vacuum, or as platonic ideals. They must be enacted through some actions or rulings. I have a longer spiel on how social media and news media are currently not functioning as a fair and efficient market for information. For now I will just assert this as true. The broken state of the market, means that I and you live in a world where it is more likely that the worse political decisions get made, polarization and autocracy are more likely not less, and complex coordination challenges do not get solved. Building ways to ensure a market which does not devolve into a “might makes right”, or “abuse is good” scenario, is to build guard rails and limiters. This is the current limiter which is being proposed. In essence, it’s not like we live in a world where things are perfectly fine, even for us. Do note - I don’t know you well enough to know what things you value, but it is clear you value some things more than just what is optimal for you. So there is a set of values you have, some of which are going to be injured by these solutions, and others served. One wrinkle in your argument - If the costs could be taken from parents, that would be great, however one group of bad actors in these situations is adults. So as a class, there is some case that could conceivably be made for adults to bear that cost.
    - 4mo ago

intended 4mo ago

This is orbiting the issue of personal responsibility and social burdens. I get the impression that you recognize that there are certain costs that are distributed on members of a society, because it is the least problematic way to address some collective action issue. You could migrate to the libertarian ideal, if that is what suits you. if this counts as GFMS, I sadly don’t mean in it those terms. I dont know you well enough to know what specific harms would matter to your wellbeing. It could range from what the state of the next voting cohort will be. It could range from having a social environment of better adjusted adults creating art, science or just relationships that will impact you as you age. It’s more capacity for families, mental resilience and less dead weight loss of kids getting trapped into emotional tar pits. It’s a signal that as a society we don’t want to see our kids addicted, and that if we impose such costs on ourselves, we will impose heavier costs on the perpetrators. There is a reckoning with social media and addictive design that is to be had; this is a step on that path. It makes it easier for parents who are struggling, and reduces harm to kids and teens. It may give us a way to deal with the absolute scourge of non consensual intimate imagery. I’ve personally had to flag and remove stuff of that nature, and even in a country like america, that kind of content is life ending. In a religiously conservative country, that can lead to much, much worse. However this is a smorgasbord of ills that society as a whole is struggling to deal with. You are a standing member of that society. I don’t know you well enough to make a case that makes sense. I will add, You also don’t look to be a passive member of society, so you are doubly screwed. You get the bonus burden of having to think about how to solve the problem in the best manner possible.

fluoridation 4mo ago
>It could range from [...] as a whole is struggling to deal with. I thought you said you read the thread. You've fallen into the same mistake CPLX has made. You're answering why children should be protected. I've already granted that premise, there's no need to argue for it. My question was why people who don't have children should bear the burden of that protection instead of their parents. If a more concrete question would help, why should all adults pay to be able to prove that they're adults (just to be able to retain a freedom they already had, I should add), instead of being given that ability for free by the government, and the government collecting the costs of the program from parents?
- intended 4mo ago
  So I don’t have kids, and I have worked in trust and safety. As stated, society is finding a sub optimal solution for a person in a narrow read of my situation. I (and you) are impacted by the second order effects of the decision to do something or to do nothing. Our freedoms do not exist in a vacuum, or as platonic ideals. They must be enacted through some actions or rulings. I have a longer spiel on how social media and news media are currently not functioning as a fair and efficient market for information. For now I will just assert this as true. The broken state of the market, means that I and you live in a world where it is more likely that the worse political decisions get made, polarization and autocracy are more likely not less, and complex coordination challenges do not get solved. Building ways to ensure a market which does not devolve into a “might makes right”, or “abuse is good” scenario, is to build guard rails and limiters. This is the current limiter which is being proposed. In essence, it’s not like we live in a world where things are perfectly fine, even for us. Do note - I don’t know you well enough to know what things you value, but it is clear you value some things more than just what is optimal for you. So there is a set of values you have, some of which are going to be injured by these solutions, and others served. One wrinkle in your argument - If the costs could be taken from parents, that would be great, however one group of bad actors in these situations is adults. So as a class, there is some case that could conceivably be made for adults to bear that cost.
  - 4mo ago