They probably should at least update it -- I don't think a government should recommend free VPN services. Too many of them are a form of botnet, malware, ddos, etc.

Yes. Isn’t effective regulation of dangerous products wonderful.

Times would be tough if we could only express thoughts noone thought before.

> What an original thought.

Novel analysis here by IshKebab. :P

It’s better to hide conflicts of interest?

(Edit: I don’t disagree with Mozilla’s position, but failure to declare an obvious conflict of interest undermines their credibility.)

The foundation does get some of its funding from the corporation, though.

The technology bit doesn't really matter though.

The real problem is that the legislation would bring the power to prosecute people who use them or use it against them.

The security services aren't having any of that shit because it puts their position at risk both from the front-facing side and recommendations and guidance issued and from their own operations.

Their job is also to secure national infrastructure. Compromising that through policy would do more damage.

This assumes all parties involved already have a perfect understanding of the incentive structures at play.

Even under the uncharitable interpretation that 'the government' is against you, it assumes the state operates on Level 1 and can act on the raw premise that they don't care about privacy. While in reality, institutions have to manage optics and operate on Level 2 (as described in the SLtI framework: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-...). Because they have to maintain that Level 2 structural facade for long-term viability, they can be forced to concede key policy points anyway.

There is a huge difference between supporting the regulation of algorithmic feeds and other dark patterns and a direct attack on personal privacy.

How old are you? I had the internet too but my homeland is already gone. Forums are empty, IRC channels quiet. It's just garbage run by adtech companies now.

Who knows?

Sexualization of teens is a thing. I personally blame social media together with showbusiness. But kids had access to the internet at the same time.

And the internet was slightly different than it's now. It had much more sharp edges that we learned how to live with.

But it also was much less predatory. World's smartest psychologists and programmers didn't work 80 hour weeks for small fortunes to make it as much addictive as possible.. if it was only that. It's also as triggering and depressing as possible, because distressed and depressed people are engaging more and can't stop.

What I mean to say is that you can't really draw an equal sign between internet we grew up with and the one we give (or choose to limit) to our children.

I don't mean we should block them, just that it's not the same.

We are many things, but "fine" isn't one of them.

How much the problems today are due to, rather than coincidental with, the internet, is a much more difficult thing to discern.

I would be one of those two generations. I dispute your point on two grounds: first, the internet today isn't what it was back then; secondly, I, and many of my peers, didn't turn out just fine.

Back then the internet was a wild west run by thousands of clever people. It was like living in a neighborhood full of people kind of like you. Nobody built it to be addictive or to cultivate attention. If you wanted something you searched for it. Nowadays everyone is on there and it's run by evil adtech companies. Kids these days are not having the experience we had back then.

It also didn't really do us much good. Already back then geeky types like me had somewhere to retreat to and we did. It took me years to learn real social skills and build a life off of the internet. When I see headlines like "Gen Z aren't having sex" I'm hardly surprised. They're not having sex because they're on the internet. What's more is nobody is learning to be an adult at all. People are in a adult bodies but still totally children at heart. They don't own anything, shun responsibility etc.