StanislavPetrov

It's all one side as far as I'm concerned and always has been.

Exactly right, better to cut your losses and just hit "block and report as spam".

>I don't think "if you're raising a child the way most Americans do, you shouldn't have a child" is going to be a productive argument

I didn't say it is a productive argument, I said, "I reject the assertion that it is a "practical impossibility" for a parent to properly raise their child." I don't believe it is possible to make a productive argument in the United States because the overwhelming majority of Americans lack the capacity to think critically and make good decisions. The authoritarians who run our country will eliminate anonymity and privacy and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. It doesn't matter what argument you make.

And in my parent comment above that, I further qualified that by saying, "No, in a free society the government doesn't decide, via its monopoly on violence, what it's okay for consenting adults to say or hear. And in a sane society, parents are responsible for policing what their children see and hear, and not the government. Our society is neither free or sane, but the point stands. Freedom is anathema to the authoritarians who are in the process of stripping us of our few remaining freedoms and what remains of our anonymity and our privacy.

That doesn't mean that we can't jawbone about how a free society should operate, and what people who give lip service to the concept of freedom should support. We can also point out that the authoritarians in charge could care less about the welfare or safety of your children, and must laugh to themselves about how stupid the masses are to trade what few freedoms they have left for the illusion of safety for their children. At least for now. Until posting unregulated messages is outlawed for the safety of the children, with all the usual suspects cheering it on.

You miss the point completely. The issue here isn't that ABC fired Kimmel because he isn't funny and his show was losing money. The issue here is that government regulators threatened and pressured ABC over Kimmel's Constitutionally protected speech.

>What happens when policing that is a practical impossibility because children can dive into a sea of information from thousands of unsecured nodes, utterly disintermediating their parents from that process?

I reject the assertion that it is a "practical impossibility" for a parent to properly raise their child. The fact that it is common practice for a parent to outsource the raising of their child to strangers ("day care") and the government ("public schools") doesn't mean that is is smart, desirable, beneficial or conducive to raising a smart, moral and intelligent child. If your answer is, "I have to outsource the rearing of my child to others/the government because of XYZ", then my answer to you is don't have a child! The "trade-offs" that the non-trivial number of citizens in the US and the UK are choosing to make is to trade the freedom of other people so that they don't have to worry about properly supervising or raising their children. Sorry, you don't get to trade my freedoms for your convenience, especially when trading away my freedoms ultimately does nothing to solve the problem your tradeoff purportedly solves, as children will always find a way to access the internet anyway.

>Network television could control what showed up in your living room without you expecting it. Verizon and Comcast can't (nor should they, but the "can't" matters quite a bit here).

No parent was forced to buy a TV and no parent is forced to by their child a device with unfettered access to the internet. Suggesting that we should strip away the rights and freedoms of every adult and entirely abandon the right to privacy and anonymity in a fruitless attempt to bulletproof society for children is a non-starter for me and many others.

>China does the same thing.

No, China is smart enough not expect foreign courts to carry out the work of the Chinese censorship regime.

>What of the wellbeing and interests of the vulnerable who stumble onto /b/ ill-equipped for the firehose? Are we their keepers also?

No, in a free society the government doesn't decide, via its monopoly on violence, what it's okay for consenting adults to say or hear. And in a sane society, parents are responsible for policing what their children see and hear, and not the government.

Neither Kimmel or Kirk ever said anything that wasn't fully protected under the 1st Amendment, and anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of the law, a blind political partisan, or (more likely), both.

>its gonna have to start complying

This is only true if, to quote the article being responded to:

>Unless Ofcom is prepared to sail a British invasion fleet here and land ground troops

All political parties and politicians rely heavily on emotional appeals both because they are effective and because people across the political spectrum are becoming more polarized, dumber and less informed (more saturated with their respective tribal propaganda) every day, making them even more susceptible to this sort of nonsense.

Friend of mine ran a dial-up BBS in the early 90s when we were in our late teens. We had been to a few 2600 meetings (in the lobby, near the payphones) and were obviously into tech, though not as heavily as others. The BBS was comprised of a bunch of the usual doors (Tradewars 2002, ect) and a few message boards. The BBS has been up for a couple of years and, being a single line, accounts were limited to 20 or 30 minutes a day. It was rather popular and when someone logged off there would usually be someone calling and logging in right after.

Moderation was lax (at best) as we spent more time playing Tradewars than we did reading the message boards. Eventually one of the message boards became popular among serious hackers, and they would regular post back and forth there, which we found amusing. Soon after, one of our mutual friends, who was a serious hacker (albeit not connected with our BBS) was arrested for some illegal hacking activities. When he was released, he called my friend and told him that he had been questioned specifically about his BBS. Needless to say that was the last day the BBS was online as my friend rushed downstairs to turn it off and format his 40 MB hard drive!

>Is that not the epitome of the classic mid life crisis?

The classic epitome of the mid life crisis has always been something along the lines of, "I spent my whole life working and doing a job that I didn't like, sacrificing my youth and my precious time with my friends and family, and all I'm left with is money. My mortality is coming into view, my best years are behind me, and as I sit here in my big house with my fancy car, I realize I wasted all that time all chasing dollars."

That's a lot different than, "I spent my whole life working and doing a job that I didn't like, sacrificing my youth and my precious time with my friends and family, and I'm left with nothing at all. I have no prospect for retirement, will likely become homeless and destitute when I am unable to continue working and/or am laid off, and their is no future."

In 2026 scare quotes around the word "leader" should be obligatory in all cases.

A large portion of the time I google something that I know a lot about the AI summary is misleading if not outright wrong. Frightening when you consider how many take their so-called AI as gospel.