>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?
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.
>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.
"Bad actors"? I see three separate subsets of people, different unions of which would yield possible interpretations of "bad actors":
* Adults targeting children with the intent to commit illegal acts. E.g. groomers.
* Adults targeting children with the intent to commit legal but harmful acts. E.g. adults marketing lootboxes to children.
* Adults engaging exclusively with other adults in legal interactions that would be harmful (and possibly illegal) if a child were to be involved. E.g. adults trading pornography and banning minors on sight.
(Let me emphasize that these are mere examples, not necessarily representative of their set.)
I don't think it's in dispute that all three sets currently exist on the Internet. I would not say that the third one is a bad actor, though. Yet it by itself would be argument enough to either remove children from the Internet or to cordon them off to their own exclusive corner. So if the third set was the only one that was non-null we would have a situation where there are no bad actors, yet all adults are still bearing the cost of this system.
Now let's suppose that only the first set is non-null. If there's a bunch of criminals targeting children, that seems like a police matter. Why are law-abiding citizens getting roped in? En masse, at that.
For the second set, legislate until it becomes the first set.
The last paragraph of my longer comment was definitely not what I expected to displace our energies towards. Just a potential wrinkle in the thesis.
The larger point you are asking to be established is how you as a class of members in shared society should have costs added to them which.
I attempted to make the case for you; in general you are already paying costs. The maladies from the current state of social media and the Internet mean that you are impacted already, even if you don’t have kids.
The scale of the “pollution” so to speak, from other parties, is not addressable by independent action.
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?