The alternative is to refuse to delegate the formation and development of the character of our children and culture to automated systems and regulatory policies. Engage with your children on topics that matter. Discuss the pros and cons of various viewpoints and political platforms with your friends and neighbors, colleagues and fellow bus-riders. We, ourselves, are the psychosocial immune system for society, and if we construct an environment in which we can not be exposed harmful concepts, then we will never learn how to respond and combat it when we inevitably are exposed to it.

This is not to say that we should not actively work to prevent criminal acts, but that trying to establish a world in which such acts are impossible will cripple society in ways which will leave us vulnerable to much larger and more systemic abuses. Benjamin Franklin’s statement rings as true as ever, if in a rather updated context: “ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

▲

HWR_14 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Engage with your children on topics that matter.

And what do we do for the children who have parents who fail them. How do we even detect it in time to help those children?

	▲	d0100 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The answer is always money, just ask all the small, rich European countries that have no need for draconian measures against their citizens
	▲	Taurenking 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

bamboozled 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Similar to the arguments about climate change and how we as individuals should tackle it. Not going to happen sorry.

"If only we would just self organize into communities to protect childen..." ok.

▲

qcnguy 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes because self-organizing communities have never appeared anywhere in history.

Just because you are afraid you can't win arguments doesn't mean you should get to impose your view by violence. Which is what you advocate for, when you say the government should impose your views on the population.

	▲	bamboozled 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Quite an abrasive / overly defensive response, sorry you feel that way. Not trying to win an argument, I just haven't really got a solid answer. People just get passionate about how they should have a right to secret communications online, why all the burden should be on parents to protect kids from harmful substances, yet can't really give a good reason as to why that is. Yet on the other hand, those same people probably want to live in a world that is relatively safe from terrorism, sexual abuse etc. I just said I can understand why to some people, wanting to stop children having access to a VPN doesn't necessarily have to be this big secret government overreach conspiracy? Do I think we should have to have government surveillance software running on everyone's computer? No. I just understand more than a single perspective and I think those who seem to shoot these proposals down rarely give good arguments expect, basically, the government is out to get us, or it suits me the way it is now.