Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
I'm shocked. Well not that shocked.
It's always a good idea to follow the money. A few random bandwagon jumpers screaming about saving the children provided a front for a gambling company. Should we be asking them questions about their involvement in said company? I think we should.
It is possible to be right for wrong reasons. Nothing prevents a general ban on gambling ads from moving forward since underage users might still see them.
Rationale doesn’t matter anyway, elites seem to doing what they want without any external input. Like, how come a ban on users under 16 requires more verification effort than verifying users under 13? I’m not even against ending anonymity on commercial mass market services but I can’t piece together chain of reasoning here.
It is possible to be right for wrong reasons. Nothing prevents a general ban on gambling ads from moving forward since underage users might still see them.
I can agree with what you're saying but also say that this is more a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
They wanted to offload their responsibility as parents for enforcing parental controls for their children onto the internet at large, which puts the identities and PII of adults at risk in a way that is increasingly more dangerous. It also directly contributed to the erosion of our privacy.
They also claim to be a grass roots movement and wouldn't claim to be affiliated with a corporation (especially not one involved in gambling). That is an important distinction and they should have their feet put to the fire for it because either they knew and didn't care, or they didn't know and were manipulated.