Comment by gzread
11 days ago
This is not being supported because the size of the step is small, but because the step itself makes sense.
The slippery slope argument says that open source software is a stepping stone to a world where all commercial activity is banned. Should we therefore oppose open source software?
"makes sense" does a lot of heavy lifting. Explain the justification for this restriction on 1A rights and mandatory compulsion of speech for anyone writing software.
And your provided "slippery slope argument" is just a straw man argument. No one in this thread made that argument. The slippery slope is the authoritarian ratchet.
If you want to restrict your kid's access to the internet, install software that does that. I think in 2026, when kids have personal devices, key word "personal", meaning there is an expected level of privacy we should respect, effective insulation against the bad parts of the internet will not be achieved through software. Meanwhile, this legislation will be used to prevent children from turning into organized free thinkers.
How does the step make sense? Has any linux user ever requested this "feature"? Does it provide some sort of benefit to the user?
> The slippery slope argument says that open source software is a stepping stone to a world where all commercial activity is banned.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it's very useful to parents who want to restrict their children's computer use. Some of those parents use Linux.
Yes, it does.
It's not, you need actual parental controls. Furthermore if this was just for the children it would be a setting you opt into, fully optional and unregulated, like parental controls are now.
And no, there is absolutely no argument for a slippery slope here. Especially considering we've had OSS for what, 50 years now? And corporations are doing just fine. Unlike the vast history of authoritarianism and government oppression and violence that occurs exactly through this mechanism of giving an inch over and over again until they have taken miles.
Don't be an idiot.
2 replies →