I think we totally disagree on the degree of how much this is actually a problem compared to how much we're willing to invest in it. Those anonymous solutions are fairly idealistic and Nirvana-esque themselves, I don't think they'd see wide adoption. Beyond that I'm firmly in the camp that age verification for the kids is a complete smokescreen for the actual intent of these efforts, which is more surveillance, so on principal I'm opposed to any movement in this direction and doubt we'll find common ground.

▲

cromka 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, sure, no matter the studies, no matter the developmental indices, ni matter the WHO, no matter the psychologists. Let's also talk about climate change and how it's up for debate?

We don't disagree on whether it is actually a problem, you just have your opinion about facts.

▲

akersten 7 hours ago | parent [-]

We are arguing different things. I have never stated "psychological effects of the Internet aren't real and therefore this discussion is moot." My argument is "psychological effects or not (and personally I think they are overplayed), the privacy tradeoff of trying to fix them is not worth it (and I doubt any vague gestures in the direction of age assurance would help)." You are focusing on the first parenthetical but the important part is outside it.

We also have no way to actually measure this even if we wanted to do an experiment. So comparing this very soft science to climate change is a bit out of pocket.

	▲	cromka 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> We also have no way to actually measure this even if we wanted to do an experiment. Sorry, WHAT? No way to measure it? My god, are we talking about the same thing? Are you sure you haven't missed past 12-24 months of increased reporting on the matter from several different angles, from cognitive skills, anxiety, sexual drive, and so on? EOT for me.