Do we have science to support that internet in its current state is safe? What do we need to understand it? Is it even in the realm of feasibility?
There is a lot of media articles about the dangers of social media. Are all of them pseudoscience lies then? If these sorts of posts encourage hysteria about online content, isn't that the same as causing harm?
Maybe the act has loopholes to allow for some US Great Wall analogue (that seems to be what the article implies). What are those? Can it be reformed to ensure safety without creating a curtain of censorship?
So many interesting, relevant, questions to make.
bigyabai•1h ago
The internet cannot be made safe. For as long as you consider information a hazard to it's users, the internet will enable people to freely spread ideas harmful or intelligent. This happens today, it happened in the past, and it will continue into the future barring some radical redesign of the internet's protocols.
Legislature like this puts the tiny side-effects first ("think of the kids!") while conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the ways it stifles democratic process and individual rights. If a similar law was passed regulating libraries this way, voters would universally agree that it's a pants-on-head stupid decision.
alganet•1h ago
So, it's unfeasible to either prove or disprove its safety.
Claiming there is no scientific basis then is doubly irrelevant, in addition to laws often not requiring scientific studies to be passed. It sounds like it's trying to fool people, specially "science defenders". I think it's dishonest, and people will notice.
"Think of the kids" is used by a lot of media articles hammering the "big tech is bad" anvil. It poses a contradiction. They're trying to justify it by saying it will harm only small businesses ("think of the poor small businesses!"). However, there is the contradiction of the same media articles having had created the very same hysteria that pushes people to support the act. It is not helping to sell why one would vote against it.
I said it bluntly: it opens a loophole for US Great Firewall. That argument will sell to both the right and the left, and it will be untouchable. It is also rooted in truth.
I also provided solid questions that, if made in opposition to the act, will stop it. But there needs to be a stop to the sensationalist media too (everybody wins, media conglomerates lose a very small, already known to be ineffective tabloid thematic).
I am trying to help the poorly written article to be better written.
andy99•1h ago
I always thought kids safety was one of the four horsemen of the internet apocalypse, as in the internet would be destroyed by political actors in the name of "think of the children". I tried to confirm or refute that, but the internet has unfortunately already been destroyed by AI and I can't reliably look anything up anymore.
alganet•1h ago
Do we have science to support that internet in its current state is safe? What do we need to understand it? Is it even in the realm of feasibility?
There is a lot of media articles about the dangers of social media. Are all of them pseudoscience lies then? If these sorts of posts encourage hysteria about online content, isn't that the same as causing harm?
Maybe the act has loopholes to allow for some US Great Wall analogue (that seems to be what the article implies). What are those? Can it be reformed to ensure safety without creating a curtain of censorship?
So many interesting, relevant, questions to make.
bigyabai•1h ago
Legislature like this puts the tiny side-effects first ("think of the kids!") while conveniently neglecting to acknowledge the ways it stifles democratic process and individual rights. If a similar law was passed regulating libraries this way, voters would universally agree that it's a pants-on-head stupid decision.
alganet•1h ago
Claiming there is no scientific basis then is doubly irrelevant, in addition to laws often not requiring scientific studies to be passed. It sounds like it's trying to fool people, specially "science defenders". I think it's dishonest, and people will notice.
"Think of the kids" is used by a lot of media articles hammering the "big tech is bad" anvil. It poses a contradiction. They're trying to justify it by saying it will harm only small businesses ("think of the poor small businesses!"). However, there is the contradiction of the same media articles having had created the very same hysteria that pushes people to support the act. It is not helping to sell why one would vote against it.
I said it bluntly: it opens a loophole for US Great Firewall. That argument will sell to both the right and the left, and it will be untouchable. It is also rooted in truth.
I also provided solid questions that, if made in opposition to the act, will stop it. But there needs to be a stop to the sensationalist media too (everybody wins, media conglomerates lose a very small, already known to be ineffective tabloid thematic).
I am trying to help the poorly written article to be better written.