Let me guess- preventing child abuse- unless it's done by an israeli government official of course https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/16/nevada-arres...
Birth rates are so low that a lot of people don't even have kids. Why should we preference other people's children to a total invasion of our privacy? Shouldn't those parents mind their own offspring?
Stop putting god and other people's children in my life. That's none of the government's business.
This is very naive worldview.
Stop imposing religion, lifestyle, judgment. Live and let live.
What people do with their own lives is none of anybody else's business.
I am pretty sure he is aware that the default is rather intrusive - but that doesn't mean that is the right default.
What people do with their own lives is none of anybody else's business.
One of the main characteristics of the society is that its members take business in what other people do with their own lives.
Saying that it shouldn't be the case is not a proposal for a different society, but for abolishing it altogether, and thus naive.
That is your definition of societey, but one I consider close to totalitarian. And yeah, sadly it is the standard, but there are societies that stick together, so each member has better chances of living their own live and not so each members lives the live that the others force them to live.
Saying other people may not interfer uninvited in my life is not the same as saying people may not care about me.
I care about other people and interfer in their life, because in the case of my kids, they cannot sustain on their own and they want me as their parent. So there is consent in general about it.
But I am not telling my neibghors that they must wear a warm jacket when it is cold.
(Or that they may not consume porn, to not go to hell)
There is a slight difference between offering help for example and forcing someone to do things in a different way, no matter how well intentioned.
Poverty and bad parenting is the problem, not the Internet.
> it's communities obligation to raise them.
I'd favor taxing bad parents instead of taxing the broader society.
If you don't want your kids seeing content you disagree with, don't give them access. It's a parent's responsibility.
I find it hard to believe that this is the top priority.
> Those who want privacy will usually find it.
Increasingly impossible. Privacy is evaporating.
Coupled with the increasing amounts of censorship, freedom of speech is disappearing too.
The next step is to leverage these tools to control the population. It's already happening.
Right now these systems are being used to coerce powerful politicians and business leaders. It's a trap that becomes a blunt instrument.
One day in the not too distant future you'll have to sign in with your government photo ID to make queries or posts online. If you say something "bad", the government will fine you and limit your social mobility. Your jobs, your opportunities, your money will all be suspended, subject to your pending social rehabilitation.
The only way to stop that is to shut it down now.
Sorry that the kiddies might see boobies. Maybe mom and dad need to limit smartphone access or install filters.
If we're being honest with ourselves, we'd crack down on all the rampant sex trafficking in Roblox. But we know that protecting kids isn't the real reason these things are being developed.
However, the continued existence of society requires other people's children, so maybe it's a pretty important investment?
Does it really require knee-capping the internet and privacy though?
Is this really the pressing issue for society?
News flash: every country in the world has an Epstein. Even Epstein has been replaced and a new guy is doing his work. Or does anybody really believe that child abuse among elites in the US and globally has suddenly stopped when Epstein was suicided?