Comment by trinsic2
6 days ago
I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children.
The way it stands now. this issue is being used by people in power to advanced an authoritarian agenda. Its really clear to see, if you only have the will to look.
>I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children.
Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have to agree on the motivations behind this push. Even if you believe this is all an authoritarian conspiracy, that conspiracy could be undermined by proposals like OP's, but instead people make enemies out of these potential allies which just further empowers the people who you consider to be authoritarians. It's a failure of basic political coalition building.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957480
Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But if these initiatives push forward IDing people to have protection, then Im sorry you are on the wrong side of life and are involved in making the future of our society worse. I don't see you as an enemy, more misguided then anything. Im sure people are going to turn this into friends and enemies, but I don't look at it that way. I have to defend freedom under all circumstances. In most cases I support deontology over utilitarianism because I have seen how far we have slid in terms of being free as a people because we want to make everyone safe..
Taking away freedoms, for any reason, is not the answer. They make us less secure [0] and promote bad actors to make things worse.
[0]: https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-...
>Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described.
But you're ignoring my point that your dialog is actively counterproductive when you don't engage with the root of the problem.
Nowhere in here did I advocate for "taking away freedoms" or for the age verification policies as discussed in this article. The only aspect of this issue that I have argued is that there is a real organic demand from people who want help in preventing children from having unfettered access to the internet.
The reason you see me as "misguided" is because you are refusing to actually listen to what I'm saying. And then you magnify the divide with your rhetoric implying I'm out to take away your freedom. Maybe you don't look at me as an enemy, but your rhetoric and behavior is actively repellent when it could instead be welcoming as you claim to sympathetic to the only issue I have actually advocated for here.
4 replies →