Normies are flocking to government to crack down on this stuff because the government is already enforcing unprecedented levels of influence in their daily lives.
Don't believe me? Object to groomers grooming your kids or demanding that your son Timmy is now Tammy and see what happens.
They don't realize that this sort of power always goes one way for some reason. They expect fair and equitable treatment under the law. Will they ever come to grips with the new reality? Dunno. It'll probably be nasty if they ever do.
The cost of your anonymity is too high a price. Digital ID will not prevent the corruption of children by leftists and globalists, but it will be used to prevent you from speaking out against it.
Saying something is not a solution does not mean the government doing anything is a solution.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
I agree that parents aren't doing their job, but that doesn't give governments the right to step in. People are imperfect, many are retarded. And plenty of those retards are in government. Giving retards power over me just because someone else is being a retard is not the answer.
Laws generally hit the people who don't need them hardest anyway. Yeah, sure, fuck all of us over because parents are stupid...and will continue to be stupid after this law passes.
You really think the people that are currently letting their children have unrestricted access won't also be the parents who will sign off on letting their kids have unrestricted access after this?
This solves nothing, and gives the government more control over the flow of information, which is exactly what they want.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
It's that simple. Letting the government do something just because something needs to be done makes things worse, not better. This isn't a solution, so it's a moot point.
Somebody has to figure out a way to get kids off the internet.
You mean, like simply not giving them a smartphone? By simply controlling what your kids are doing, just like how humanity has done it for thousands of years, until the last 20 years or so when parents started to rely on technology to do the "parenting"?
Ding Ding Ding! Maybe don't give your 11 year old a smartphone. And no, just cuz Beck from the other class has one doesn't mean YOU should get one. It's one of the most dangerous things aside for a gun or drugs that you can give a kid and just ignore. I started on the net at 15 and the next was a totally different place back then. Now I wouldn't without subervision give a kid a phone at that age.
Why isn't it a solution? Before you answer, remember that "putting criminals in prison instead of letting them go free" was considered "not a solution" for decades in El Salvador, until someone just, you know, DID IT, and reduced crime rates by over 95% and increased their happiness index from one of the least to one of the most happy populaces on Earth.
So why isn't parental responsibility a solution? Is it "too hard"? Harder than rounding up nearly 100,000 machine-gun-armed violent psychpaths in one year who actively kill as many as they can going down? Is it not a solution because it might require the faintest, the mildest, the tiniest of efforts or even, dare I say, incentives?
Social and fiscal incentives work. Indoctrination works. Propaganda works. They are almost always used for nefarious means, but ultimately, they are tools.
Beyond this, heavy-handed government-side rules can exist to drive population opinion. In example, to reduce vaping in youth, many places have banned child-advertising of the products, including things like child-friendly flavor advertisements [many states cannot advertise "liquid candy!" as a vaping product]. You could make it illegal to advertise anything "child oriented" on social media, from facebook games to Elsagate-style schlock, show no kids using Instagram, restrict TikTok ads on TV to late night timeslots and internet ads for it only on age-restricted websites (banish it to the same rules as pornography ads, basically). With no financial backing, no profit to be made in wasting large amounts of bandwidth dollars, thus the market will contract, GDP will reduce (oh well), and the consumers will consume less.
It's simple enough, really. It's just work. And will have a whole bunch of "influencers" complaining and smearing you for restricting their access to your children.
This direction is how we are going to end up with a national/state level Intranet and device restrictions, never mind age/ID verification. Because anything less won't be deemed safe enough for children if a child could accidentally or intentionally access or see anything an adult can.
They’re technically not wrong. We have had years now of families letting their crotch goblins grow up and now have roving bands of “youths” wrecking shit that isn’t theirs and trannies. However, this is caused by not having a full nuclear family and the government incentivizing bad behavior to fathers.
You say this like this isn't the case already.
Normies are flocking to government to crack down on this stuff because the government is already enforcing unprecedented levels of influence in their daily lives.
Don't believe me? Object to groomers grooming your kids or demanding that your son Timmy is now Tammy and see what happens.
They don't realize that this sort of power always goes one way for some reason. They expect fair and equitable treatment under the law. Will they ever come to grips with the new reality? Dunno. It'll probably be nasty if they ever do.
That may be true, but parental responsibility is not a solution. It's just not. Somebody has to figure out a way to get kids off the internet.
The cost of your anonymity is too high a price. Digital ID will not prevent the corruption of children by leftists and globalists, but it will be used to prevent you from speaking out against it.
Saying something is not a solution does not mean the government doing anything is a solution.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
I agree that parents aren't doing their job, but that doesn't give governments the right to step in. People are imperfect, many are retarded. And plenty of those retards are in government. Giving retards power over me just because someone else is being a retard is not the answer.
Laws generally hit the people who don't need them hardest anyway. Yeah, sure, fuck all of us over because parents are stupid...and will continue to be stupid after this law passes.
You really think the people that are currently letting their children have unrestricted access won't also be the parents who will sign off on letting their kids have unrestricted access after this?
This solves nothing, and gives the government more control over the flow of information, which is exactly what they want.
Fine, then what is?
Pressure the ISPs?
Neighborhood watch to slap phones out of hands?
I'm just going to quote myself here:
It's that simple. Letting the government do something just because something needs to be done makes things worse, not better. This isn't a solution, so it's a moot point.
You mean, like simply not giving them a smartphone? By simply controlling what your kids are doing, just like how humanity has done it for thousands of years, until the last 20 years or so when parents started to rely on technology to do the "parenting"?
Ding Ding Ding! Maybe don't give your 11 year old a smartphone. And no, just cuz Beck from the other class has one doesn't mean YOU should get one. It's one of the most dangerous things aside for a gun or drugs that you can give a kid and just ignore. I started on the net at 15 and the next was a totally different place back then. Now I wouldn't without subervision give a kid a phone at that age.
Working for hours to download and reassemble a few uuencoded low resolution images from Usenet forums was a learning experience, at least.
I would love it if I could choose to not allow other people's kids to have smartphones. I really would. Sounds beautifully simple.
Some people might be bad parents, but the government is an even worse parent.
Why isn't it a solution? Before you answer, remember that "putting criminals in prison instead of letting them go free" was considered "not a solution" for decades in El Salvador, until someone just, you know, DID IT, and reduced crime rates by over 95% and increased their happiness index from one of the least to one of the most happy populaces on Earth.
So why isn't parental responsibility a solution? Is it "too hard"? Harder than rounding up nearly 100,000 machine-gun-armed violent psychpaths in one year who actively kill as many as they can going down? Is it not a solution because it might require the faintest, the mildest, the tiniest of efforts or even, dare I say, incentives?
It's not a solution because, obviously, it's spontaneous individual action... while changes in populations at large are always deterministic.
If you have a plan to influence the population of parents at large, spit it out. I'm all ears.
Social and fiscal incentives work. Indoctrination works. Propaganda works. They are almost always used for nefarious means, but ultimately, they are tools.
Beyond this, heavy-handed government-side rules can exist to drive population opinion. In example, to reduce vaping in youth, many places have banned child-advertising of the products, including things like child-friendly flavor advertisements [many states cannot advertise "liquid candy!" as a vaping product]. You could make it illegal to advertise anything "child oriented" on social media, from facebook games to Elsagate-style schlock, show no kids using Instagram, restrict TikTok ads on TV to late night timeslots and internet ads for it only on age-restricted websites (banish it to the same rules as pornography ads, basically). With no financial backing, no profit to be made in wasting large amounts of bandwidth dollars, thus the market will contract, GDP will reduce (oh well), and the consumers will consume less.
It's simple enough, really. It's just work. And will have a whole bunch of "influencers" complaining and smearing you for restricting their access to your children.
This direction is how we are going to end up with a national/state level Intranet and device restrictions, never mind age/ID verification. Because anything less won't be deemed safe enough for children if a child could accidentally or intentionally access or see anything an adult can.
They’re technically not wrong. We have had years now of families letting their crotch goblins grow up and now have roving bands of “youths” wrecking shit that isn’t theirs and trannies. However, this is caused by not having a full nuclear family and the government incentivizing bad behavior to fathers.