I replied to the content of the article and HN comments, not what you think I should have replied to. If anything you even failed to notice that I expect parents to do some of the parenting and not expect an app to magically do it all for them.

The government already defines what misuse is both for children and adults, defines responsibility for a lot of things even in your cupboard, and has been doing so for as governments have been a thing. And I don’t think you understand what “thought crime” is.

You won’t hear me say this too often but next time use an LLM to write your comments, any LLM will do, can only get better.

Why would I want to write better? This is a comment on a website.

You replied to a subset of the topic, and that's the point I was making. I felt the conversation needed relevant details from outside that subset, so I provided them.

I was terse in my comment, because that's how I like comments: short and to the point. That makes them much easier to skim through.

The government doesn't enforce its rules by going through my cupboards. It doesn't put a lock on them. Instead, it tells me what the rules and consequences are, placing both authority and responsibility for the cupboards themselves into my hands.

This is the primary change we are taking about: allowing the government to introduce its own code (lock) into my private digital interactions. Why are you so intent on focusing the conversation on the mechanics of that lock? Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask you to think about the rest of the topic?