The Human Toll of Protecting the Internet from the Worst of Humanity

That is, if they can get past the PC "parents first and foremost" BS. First and foremost is stepparents and mom's boyfriends. Actual parents are a distant second, and even then is often a case of "divorced dad lost all custody rights so resorted to kidnapping in order to see children". Concentrating on the wrong thing is just as bad for advocates as it is for police.

You mention children fearing the foster system. I don't think awful foster stories are being traded at kindergarten recess, but it's true that foster care should only be contemplated in the most extreme circumstances. If child advocates are advocating for just turning up the knob on enforcement, and destroying families for such flimsy causes as corporal punishment or parental marijuana enjoyment, they're abandoning that requirement of extremity. In that case, I wonder for whom they're actually advocating, because it sure as hell ain't the children.

Not only does it go against the "comfortable narrative", it goes against the law. Children are systematically disempowered (often for their own good) until they reach arbitrary magical ages. Minimum driving age, Minimum drinking age, Age of consent, Compulsory school attendance, etc, etc. The idea that children have little agency and few rights is enshrined in law, so it's no wonder they feel powerless when they're abused.

As a case on point, I am extremely disturbed by the way media and governments handle issues like domestic violence. 1800 respect (a government department in Australia) tried to shift the blame onto young boys in a series of heavily promoted TV commercials without any opposition from the community. When a female is caught abusing a family member (child/husband), the media's excuses flow readily "she lost her job", "she was under stress at work". The imagery on TV rarely reflect abused children, despite this being exactly what's happening across the spectrum of society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that about 25-33% of domestic violence victims are male (I haven't seen figures for children, but it is likely to be heavily under reported). That's a huge percentage of people who receive little or no representation by all media outlets and the government, let alone charity groups (ie. indigenous people are rarely represented, males are never represented, children are rarely represented - see the imagery as it speaks volumes).

Imagine being a young boy whose mother either mentally or physically abuses you. You turn on the TV and you only see fully grown white women who are (supposedly) the only victims. Politicians (eg. A prominent Queensland politician who should have been dismissed and charged long ago) are legislating for gendered criminal laws because fully grown white women are (supposedly) the only victims and never (supposedly) perpetrators. The people on the TV say how bad males are. The government (1800 respect) saturates TV with domestic violence ads saying "it's a boy thing". You open the newspaper and read the same message almost every week.

Even charity groups chime in. Most charity groups (about 95% of the ones I surveyed, using a public list of every charity that deals with domestic violence) won't even show images of male victims or house male victims. Some charities (like mission Australia) even go as far as to say that "men deny domestic violence happens". Which men? Where? This is almost certainly a ruse to justify almost all of their focus being on fully grown white women (even when Mission Australia say that indigenous women are 24 times more likely to be abused, they still mostly picture _white_ women as victims).

If you really want to talk about abuse and attitudes toward abuse, the problem starts at the top. Governments are prejudiced. The media is morally bankrupt. When somebody knows the government will turn a blind eye and the media will hand out a blank cheque and the courts will say "oh poor woman, she's oppressed/distressed/lost her job", you've got a complete system that's ripe to openly support child abuse.

I find some observations quite fascinating. For example, Steve Altman (Mr Y Combinator) expressed outrage because Muslims can't get on a plane. However, I am yet to see him voice outrage about domestic violence and the appalling attitudes in most media that are open for anyone to see.

The problem doesn't start with parents (although parents contribute to the problem). It starts with apathy.

I'm not under the illusion that this problem of violence and abuse is limited to one gender as that's patently not true. We need society to accept that truth and stop making excuses.

The bigger problem is to figure out whether the extra expenses are worth it.

I'm not sure if there even was a time where these things were enough, but right now they certainly don't outweigh the psychological devastation which almost inevitably follows being on duty for a couple of years.

I don't know the reasons but I'm sure there are many, ranging from cultural shifts in society to particular regulations they use to operate.

Still, the fact remains that the job is nowadays really bad. It's hard for people who never experienced it to understand how bad it is. An analogy which often speaks to programmers is: imagine the worst case of big corporation you can, stuffed with dick-head managers, full of pointless activities which obviously contradict each other, and so on. Now imagine every single manager above you can put you in jail for almost anything - but doesn't have to, if they don't feel like it - and that you are one weird rumor away from being fired (or worse). And that's on top of actual job being shitty, tedious, sometimes pointless, always psychically and emotionally draining.

All this is to say that I agree that "one day a week of social positive work" wouldn't help very much.

The effect is the one you noticed in the 70s. From a normal citizen's perspective, the fear factor isn't there. You are generally OK so long as you cooporate, even if you tell the police to fuck off while still doing what they say. Some of this is culture: For instance, someone with a bow and quiver on their back walking through the summer palace that is here in town doesn't get harassed. There are fewer guns on the people.

I'm not sure about your outlook, however. I think they need the humanity to be able to treat people well. After all, normal people are the very people that become cops: That "edge" is a learned thing - just like it is in the military. Minimally, I'd go with a few years of training being mandatory before stepping out and becoming a rookie. Things like conflict resolution, dealing with the mentally ill, and interpersonal relations.

Edit: Oh, and stress. I'd include classes on dealing with stress in the training.

I'm not sure it's got worse intrinsically, but it has certainly got larger, so the badness has scaled along with it.

Facebook shouldn't be some kind of universal substrate on the internet anyway. Alternatives should be encouraged, and people can make their own choice about the kind of environment they want to spend their time in.

If you're saying that's impossible, and facebook is some sort of utility, or common carrier, then you can have rights which are enforced upon the space.

Ultimately, either it is a public space (which needs public rights analogous to what exists in the real world, enforced through constitutional or democratic means) or it is a private space, and the owners are free to regulate as they wish, and customers are free to make their own decisions, where to visit and where to spend their time.

I think it's incredibly entitled to want the government to punish private businesses for refusing to do a job. Not everyone has to agree with your ideas or provide you a service. Getting the state involved to literally force a small business to make a cake is an insane, authoritarian over-reaction. The fact that it seems OK to you because you have no problem with gay marriage (neither do I, btw) is really besides the point.

By all means - boycott the bakery. Call them stupid for the bad PR and lack of work they'll get for not making the cake. But coercing them under the threat of force to do a job they don't want to do? Absolutely insane, and I can't agree to it.

Excellent point. It is very well worth noting that pragmatically speaking, current law treats diversity > free speech, as is illustrated in your example.