• Sam Black@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yeah countries and states are relatively happy with the non-privacy systems as they “work”.

    My principle problem is I cannot see this system “working” to the satisfaction of the seemingly incessant voices who don’t want a child to see something that they shouldn’t, where “something” is nebulous and seems to change with who you ask and at regular intervals.

    I’m probably very jaded - I’d love to be proven wrong and this system works as a least worst option, but I’m in the UK and we recently seem hell bent on choosing the worst option offered.

    • SavvyWolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      My condolences - I’m in the UK as well and wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

      If I may offer an alternate perspective: Politicians don’t actually care about any of this, they just want votes. California’s system allows them to say “Look, we solved child safety!” without having to deal with people complaining about privacy. If there’s an existing system in place, it’s easier for politicians to say “we already solved this!” and ignore those voices.

      It also puts the guilt on parents. If this system in place, and you complain about your child seeing tiddy online, the question is going to be “why didn’t you set the age correctly then?”.

      … Of course this might be me just being optimistic. I really hope we, as a species, grow out of this new age puritanism and government overreach.