Virtvirt588

This is literally the illustration of most things within the world. The corporations/governments rather muddy the waters than actually do what has to be done.

Praise is given for effectively doing a cheap act of "niceness" that is more harmful in the long run. It is a method of deceiving the public, and taking advantage of a minority to precisely execute their evil intentions.

In this case, disability is one thing, but age and other factors are also used as a leverage point.

I assumed it was clear what I meant,

Unfortunately not. There are many individuals which are dissapointed due to the failed efforts of the blanket bans, but ultimately stand for them.

Aside from that, this problem is defacto already partially solved. As you said parental supervision - parental controls are proven to be extremely effective at what they do, if they are utilised correctly.

But even so, you are highlighting the need for separation of developing minds even if that statement has no basis on age. If you're serious about it, then the whole internet should be designed to be safe for everyone.

I agree, we do.

That is true. The effects of social media shall not be applied to just the children and consequently also the teens, but to all the people. Such laws are basically half measures which do more harm than good.

Regulation is what should be done; if efficiency is what we strive for, why aren't the corporations responsible for this not being regulated. A safe internet shall be safe for all - It is important to realise children grow up to be teenagers then adults just like everyone, such a disproportionate effort is completely unacceptable.

Why is it that we look at the ways the children circumvent this ban but not corporations? This law is not made for the people, it is made for the corporations.

I'm not opposed to the concept

That's such a poor way to say that you support blanket bans. Even if it worked, this approach has technological and egalitarian problems which are clearly missing from the scope of such laws.

It is important to highlight that we have teens grouped in there not just the children, so infact this kind of law will be doing more harm than good. But even if the law is rooted on ageism and discrimination, it is clear that all age groups are being violated of their human and youth rights.

Technologically, this blanket ban has no real effect, it has been proven that local parental controls for children and maybe for teens is way more effective - leaving the whole internet ageism free. In reality the internet should be safe for everyone rather than a select minority - taking half approaches like this is just an excuse to further segment the already segmented internet.

In addition, politically, these type of laws should be transparent. No matter what its aimed to do, non-transparent laws shall not be trusted. Open democracy was also what is missing from these laws.

Lemmy does have some eco-fascist takes. Its not often but you have situations where posts are infested with the most deranged reasoning. Instead of focusing on the root issue, the perspective is given towards normal people and how bans are the "way forward" rather than regulation.

I agree, this is just an inexcusable reasoning that is essentially flawed. In all essence, the ads, the intrusive popups, the 1000 cookies which you have to accept and giving money to those poor billionaires is implied to be as the right thing to do - which is not.

Justifications like this is why we still have shit software lying about the web and nothing is done about it. The companies dont care about the people, and they don't care about op. Being a suckup for a corpo will get you nowhere - in fact saying that they're the best, is just a false narrative.

In the end that statement is essentially an oxymoron. Op is trying to justify the oppressive strategies of corpoware, while not realising that they already have info about op's stepmother's maiden name.

Not really sure what the bottom ones are/represent, but the authoritarian part is spot on!