It really is. How else can we move forward without discussing these things as a collective? It's no good if just one group decides the rules for everybody. Laws need to reflect society's norms.
> just unrealistic.
I'm sorry but I don't accept that we ought to abandon progress because it seems unrealistic. Self landing reusable rockets seemed unrealistic. International flight seemed unrealistic. Even progress on women's or PoC's issues seemed unrealistic.
If you're okay with letting people get hurt while things proceed at the natural, ambling pace of society, or whatever, because it's too hard to do otherwise, I get that, but I'm not okay with that. I think we have a duty to make things better for people. And there's no way to do that unilaterally, it has to be inclusive of the diversity of our societies, and build on the work that everyone before us has done, otherwise we're just reinforcing the existing power structures and narratives.
This kind of legislation, supporting the work people are already doing in their lives and online on places like Twitter, and Reddit, etc, would be ground breaking. And it's really not off topic, because it's the exact same type of legislation as deciding, as a society, which materials, or speech, or narrative are too harmful to be consumed or propagated. Material and speech that supports oppression and structural disadvantage is harmful, isn't it? As is material and speech that supports terrorism and violence. Maybe these things don't affect the majority, or happen all the time, but that's sort of the point.
I understand it's not easy, I understand the hassle, I understand the gut instinct to avoid anything that seems to impinge upon freedom, but some of our seeming "freedoms" are actually based on unsustainable practices, such as when our "freedom" to express a particular idea, only reinforces oppression, or normalizes violence, that ultimately hold everyone back. And policing some forms of speech, or narrative, or information as unacceptable helps make a free and just society. We shouldn't tolerate everything, especially not things that harm us. Take an example from biology, cells have walls for a reason, they are permeable, but they don't just let everything in.
I agree things move slowly. But that's why strong efforts are needed. And I also agree that so many people have become involved in this work, and I think that's why legislation needs to take some of the burden. I mean, the groundswell is an indication of a norm, no? And thank you for giving your consent for me to reply here, but as this is not just a conversation between you and me, I don't think that's appropriate nor required, because other people are reading and interested in what we say. It was good to talk! And I respect the way you made your points. I think they are a good way to live, but probably not a good way to progress society.