Fair observation, wrong conclusion:
https://m.stacker.news/130669
At what point does someone become old enough that they should have free and unfettered access to violent pornography, constant and unedited footage of war zones and computer-generated images of child sexual abuse material? How old does someone have to be before they are allowed to hide their connection by using a virtual private network (VPN)? And at what age should the state be able to intervene to stop you spending all your time talking to an online chatbot?
Rhetorical answer to rhetorical questions: I suppose NEVER?
"The problem with the focus on the young in Starmer’s new online safety suggestions is the lack of internet safeguards once someone is past the age of 16.""The problem with the focus on the young in Starmer’s new online safety suggestions is the lack of internet safeguards once someone is past the age of 16."
Safe. Safeguards. Keep us SAAAFE -- and who decides and who watches the watchmen? Cmon, bro, these are old and pretty well-trodden philosophical inquiries.
Nor is it clear how an age ban that in some cases removes the ability of teenagers to be anonymous online is good for their safety. Much of social media is not, in Kemi Badenoch’s metaphor, “a nightclub” with content that is appropriate for some ages and not others. It is a wild west rife with exploitation.
Exploitation, ah, yes. What else... terrorism, maybe? First, a nice little sleight-of-hand there:
The material that “young minds” should be protected from is also the material that can warp the social expectations and behaviour of men in their thirties and forties.
Children are a lot like terrorists, and I don’t mean that as a commentary on their behaviour. I mean that being defined as one in a liberal democracy means that you lose at least some of the rights and freedoms that other citizens take for granted.
I KNEW IT!! Of course the terrorists had to show up!
One big reason why banning under-16s from social media is taking off as a policy idea is that it is more palatable than banning all of us. But it is far from clear that any of us are well served by algorithms that dish up addictive material, violent pornography or endless footage of atrocities.
"For too many politicians, banning the young from social media is just a comforting distraction from our collective inability to protect ourselves.""For too many politicians, banning the young from social media is just a comforting distraction from our collective inability to protect ourselves."
archive: https://archive.md/xb0lB
I don't advocate political banning, but I do advocate personal morality. People should have an understanding of morality that goes beyond "consenting adults".
My favorite Tom Woods line ever:
“We can aspire to more than not punching each other in the face.”
hashtag teenage libertarian, fresh of having read Atlas Shrugged
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
It builds a censorship resistant social media platform upon the Bitcoin protocol.
To support SNs and the BTC/LN Protocol please attach and show your LN wallets as evidence you are serious about Bitcoin, freedom of speech and sats denominated P2P V4V content moderation.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.