Kids Online Safety Act Will Make the Internet Worse for Everyone
eff.org
eff.org
Do we have science to support that internet in its current state is safe? What do we need to understand it? Is it even in the realm of feasibility?
There is a lot of media articles about the dangers of social media. Are all of them pseudoscience lies then? If these sorts of posts encourage hysteria about online content, isn't that the same as causing harm?
Maybe the act has loopholes to allow for some US Great Wall analogue (that seems to be what the article implies). What are those? Can it be reformed to ensure safety without creating a curtain of censorship?
So many interesting, relevant, questions to make.
Legislature like this puts the tiny side-effects first ("think of the kids!") while conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the ways it stifles democratic process and individual rights. If a similar law was passed regulating libraries this way, voters would universally agree that it's a pants-on-head stupid decision.
Claiming there is no scientific basis then is doubly irrelevant, in addition to laws often not requiring scientific studies to be passed. It sounds like it's trying to fool people, specially "science defenders". I think it's dishonest, and people will notice.
"Think of the kids" is used by a lot of media articles hammering the "big tech is bad" anvil. It poses a contradiction. They're trying to justify it by saying it will harm only small businesses ("think of the poor small businesses!"). However, there is the contradiction of the same media articles having had created the very same hysteria that pushes people to support the act. It is not helping to sell why one would vote against it.
I said it bluntly: it opens a loophole for US Great Firewall. That argument will sell to both the right and the left, and it will be untouchable. It is also rooted in truth.
I also provided solid questions that, if made in opposition to the act, will stop it. But there needs to be a stop to the sensationalist media too (everybody wins, media conglomerates lose a very small, already known to be ineffective tabloid thematic).
I am trying to help the poorly written article to be better written.
Upload the designs of a Teller-Ulam device right now, and phone me from jail once you're finished. I am very willing to prove it, if you have sufficiently disruptive information to test with.
Now, catch up on the remaining of the argument. You only touched my first paragraph. I expected more.
Solutions must be "intelligent" and radical: acting on the real causes, not the indirect ones.
As always, education.
> If you're just gonna interject
You are made to note that discussing whether "X is harmful" is a wrong target, and requested to sharpen the focus. Everything can be harmful - water can be harmful. Teaching people how to drink is closest to the proper point. Should resources be available? Yes. Should they be used responsibly? Also yes. Whose burden is it? Societies'.
Good common sense is as always the criteria drawer. One cannot be responsible for leaving a screwdriver around because there are fools around who use them to stab.
Go back, read again. When you address the remaining of my comment, I will be ready to talk about your education solution.
No you cannot create a """safe""" world where everyone lives in a virtual woumb, but you are to fight individual abuses, through legislation against abuses ("gratuitous violence") - and not through ad hoc legiferation ("when walking on stone sidewalks in spring").