How about we make the web safe for everyone. There is no need for gambling and other harmful things, as it impacts everyone - this isnt an age problem.
This isn’t only a technical problem, but also an human rights, and youth rights problem. And right now, that anonymous I’d thing will only punish the people the most while corporations publishing harmful algorithms stay blameless.
So free reign for censorship so long as someone alleges harm?
So in your mind protecting people from proven harms is censorship? Isnt this what you essentially are advocating for here?
Side note, censorship is not what I advocate for, but a free internet thats safe for everyone. If regulation is censorship then you clearly need to look up the definitions.
You are again assuming that “proven harms” is not a term that can be manipulated. How would you feel about a potential future government banning anything about trans/gay people because it (according to them) has proven harm against children? Its not really that much of a hypothetical either as numerous states in the USA are heading down that route.
The whole premise of proven harms is that it is not manipulated - but proven. Stop trying to change the narrative, when the fact is, that harms which correspond to children also apply to other ages - thats the thing where talking about.
I’m not assuming, I am stating this, as ‘proven’ doesnt change meaning (otherwise its just misinformation).
I’m not changing the narrative, I am pointing out that there is no objective standard for proven harms, at best in a cohesive society you can get a general agreement on something like that, but there is always going to be the possibility of it being manipulated by a bad actor in power. Do you really think it would be beyond a hard right government to dredge up some “studies” showing that the “gay agenda” is damaging kids?
We all know its bollocks but that wouldn’t stop them abusing a precedent set now.
Yes, there is a possibility that a malicious actor may fabricate “studies”, im not denying that - in fact I agree with your comment.
It is important to realise that by supporting such efforts people will get hurt. Of course, banning isnt a valid option, and certainly not bans which concentrate within a particular minority.
It is those who let this happen that should dace the consequences - not the people, not the minorities and not anyone (regardless of gender, race or age). It may have appeared that I support banning but I dont.
How about we make the web safe for everyone. There is no need for gambling and other harmful things, as it impacts everyone - this isnt an age problem.
This isn’t only a technical problem, but also an human rights, and youth rights problem. And right now, that anonymous I’d thing will only punish the people the most while corporations publishing harmful algorithms stay blameless.
So free reign for censorship so long as someone alleges harm?
So in your mind protecting people from proven harms is censorship? Isnt this what you essentially are advocating for here?
Side note, censorship is not what I advocate for, but a free internet thats safe for everyone. If regulation is censorship then you clearly need to look up the definitions.
You are again assuming that “proven harms” is not a term that can be manipulated. How would you feel about a potential future government banning anything about trans/gay people because it (according to them) has proven harm against children? Its not really that much of a hypothetical either as numerous states in the USA are heading down that route.
The whole premise of proven harms is that it is not manipulated - but proven. Stop trying to change the narrative, when the fact is, that harms which correspond to children also apply to other ages - thats the thing where talking about.
I’m not assuming, I am stating this, as ‘proven’ doesnt change meaning (otherwise its just misinformation).
I’m not changing the narrative, I am pointing out that there is no objective standard for proven harms, at best in a cohesive society you can get a general agreement on something like that, but there is always going to be the possibility of it being manipulated by a bad actor in power. Do you really think it would be beyond a hard right government to dredge up some “studies” showing that the “gay agenda” is damaging kids?
We all know its bollocks but that wouldn’t stop them abusing a precedent set now.
Yes, there is a possibility that a malicious actor may fabricate “studies”, im not denying that - in fact I agree with your comment.
It is important to realise that by supporting such efforts people will get hurt. Of course, banning isnt a valid option, and certainly not bans which concentrate within a particular minority.
It is those who let this happen that should dace the consequences - not the people, not the minorities and not anyone (regardless of gender, race or age). It may have appeared that I support banning but I dont.