Children shouldn’t really be within the internet without supervision, parental controls are one thing but in school, children should be carefully guided as to digital skills and life. It quite self explanatory that children are incapable of using such technology as they’re still developing independent thinking and the fundament aspects of computing.

It’s only when children become teenagers, they become independent thinkers and where self-control and maturity could be at par with adults. In this case, age isn’t the problem - but the systematic methodology in which AI enables more “streamlined” approach which “gets the job done”.

Of course your statement highlights children, but the fact is; when those children become capable teenagers they’re just as “equipped” as adults - the only problem with teens and adults being the technical experience and knowledge which may vary.

deleted by creator

Children, paid?

Sentence that makes the capitalists blood boil - because why pay them a fair share when they can work for free, while basically sustaining their services.

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.

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!