MyMindIsLikeAnOcean

They basically mean free like Saudi Arabia is free. ie rich Saudi’s are “free” to replace the Shiahs.

It’s tough to get news out of Iran…but I’m dubious we should be getting it from a Saudi.

This is above my pay grade. I’ll never select a game for anything other than it’s enjoyability.

I definitely regret chaining myself to Steam…even if I didn’t know what I was getting myself into at the time. if I want to continue play the games bought there…I have to use Steam forever. Should be illegal.

A meaningless distinction when none of the games you bought can’t be launched without Steam.

I wasn’t aware of that because I don’t own any games on that list.

It’s definitely as issue with Steam. Once you purchase a game you can’t just launch it…you need to launch it through their platform. I don’t want to have my internet connected and Steam updated just to play a game.

I’m not sure what you mean…once you’ve purchased a game on Steam…you have to play it using Steam…a platform that needs to be working for you to play your game.

I pirate for demos….but once I buy on Steam it’s more than irritating, and sometimes makes my games unplayable, when Steam is required to play.

Urm…I’m not an activist…I just want there to be reasonable anti-trust so you don’t have to go through a bunch of bullshit to play a game you own.

I’m “mad”. Their business model should be illegal. If you buy a game you shouldn’t be chained to their platform.

It’s my understanding that this dude was using his Canadian citizenship to spy for American companies. The other Michael even got a settlement from our government because he said he was detained for his association with this guy.

So yeah…I don’t find it surprising that a spy says China is going to spy….he’d know.

More right wingers aren’t a solution for right wing problems. All they’re going to do is give the hard right cover.

If you believe parents are the only people who can help…then I’m glad you’re not in charge because that would doom us. As I said above…most parents aren’t savvy enough or don’t have the time. If parents could be the solution…it would have been solved already.

Yes, I get it…you’re saying that the groomers are the people collecting that data. Simply not true, like it or lump it those terrible laws will help…even if they’re a terrible invasion of privacy and don’t go far enough in some respects. I’m sorry, I can’t engage with somebody so wildly out of touch any more. I’m a front line worker in at risk children…and poor and at risk children…the children who are majority of children groomed…would be left out in the cold by your simplistic approach.

I see, yes, you’re reacting to specific family of regulations that I already criticized earlier in this thread. Just like I don’t think putting it on on the parents is a good thing, I don’t think having companies regulate themselves is a good thing. This is what I was talking about when I said I don’t believe we should take an approach that protects companies profits.

The alternative to self-regulation isn’t to just give up (put it in the parents hands) - it’s to have a multi pillared approach that includes everything that works, including (but not limited to) education, user tools, age gating etc. But that’s basically what we’re doing now…and instead of coming up with a comprehensive plan to regulate data at the source…we’re putting in a patchwork of company friendly virtue signals that make us less safe at the end of the day. Again: removing consumer age-gating and replacing it with nothing is a bad idea.

Nah, I have it exactly right. The current model is primarily prohibition and nothing for the rest of us….that’s very dangerous. Your fear mongering scenario isn’t a thing. You’re speaking as if all children must publicly announce their age…when you know very well that’s not how the laws function. You’re arguing that if it’s possible for groomers to get the data…then it’s not worth getting the data at all. Meanwhile I’m reality the groomers require an additional step that any system would be vulnerable to. Certainly the groomers are much happier if you win your case and we do nothing…then they have access to every kid with the exception of the few savvy parents who can use the tools effectively.

You’re not making an argument I can take seriously. You can’t just call every company who collects data a groomer, that’s absurd. As I said before…you need an actual groomer working within the system…and groomers are much happier working without a system than with one.

I completely agree that the law is lazy and doesn’t put enough oversight or privacy safeguards in place. I don’t agree that returning the internet to an unregulated hellhole with only user tools is the answer.

You’d need to demonstrate that age verification protects groomers v children…all the data says the opposite. On a basic level, we know anonymous age-gating works…but it goes nowhere near far enough.

Your only strategy can’t be tools for parents. That’s one, albeit important, pillar. You’re essentially giving tools to the people who need them the least, and leaving the children at risk out in the cold. The majority of parents aren’t savvy enough, aware of, or have the time to use the tools.

I’m talking about the real world outcomes of “leaving it to the parents”. The most common way for parents to try to protect children is prohibition…and we know that prohibition puts kids more at risk. This isn’t an edge case…this is well meaning parents putting their children in danger because they don’t understand the realities of danger. Again…draconian prohibition is currently the most common strategy - that’s what I’m talking about. These parents most often the same parents who want to restrict sex education in schools, by the way.

You have a strange and incorrect understanding of how age verification functions, or can function. You’re creating this straw man scenario where children are broadcasting their age publicly…that’s not really a thing. There’s an array of private ways to verify who a person is…we do it all the time when we’re protecting money assets or for other security. The only problem here is the expense of instituting these methods on a large scale, and requiring that the data isn’t harvested or sold or used in any other way. It’s bizarre to suggest that because a tiny portion of is vulnerable…we should stop looking at data. The harm reduction option is definitely not “leave it to the parents”.

I highly recommend educating yourself about the methods of restricting adult content…which aren’t limited to age verification by the way. It really seems like you have a specific and personal axe to grind with internet restrictions that you’re not talking about.

Well, we can protect them as societies and villages and we do.

This notion that somehow groomers are neutralized if we abandon any attempt at protecting children at large is absurd…talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Imagine a world where we just ignore the source of the issue…the groomers would have a hay day. “Sorry kid…you should have had better parents”.

Putting it all on the parents just means that a small portion of rich and savvy parents will be able to “protect” their kids, usually with draconian practices that put kids far more at risk. Pardon me…but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

No, here in reality we should continue to institute and advocate for effective measures.

There’s no question that certain types of adult content, not restricted to hardcore porn is harmful…we know it is.

It’s not “we deal with groomers OR we deal with harmful adult content…OR we only regulate popular streaming sites. We can do all of the above. We certainly don’t just throw up our hands and say “it’s not profitable to protect our children” (not what you’re saying, but rather what’s happening).

The way regulators are currently dealing with age-gating - say, in Australia - isn’t what we need to do. That certainly empowers groomers because there’s zero expertise or thought out into it: it’s an ISP-friendly virtue signal that attempts to preserve profits while making Boomers feel like something is happening.

I don’t have the answer…but I DO know there are a ton of answers that include actually attempting to study and regulate all addictive content, including adult content - ie content at the hosting level and requiring that providers and purveyors regulate their content with actual humans. We can never “win” the war if the status quo is automated moderation and profits above protection.

You said teens. I didn’t know you meant 18. Even if it wasn’t your topic…surely kids having access to hardcore porn, fetish scenarios, etcetc before they have access to sex ed isn’t optimal.

Yeah…things are better, sex ed wise, then they were in the 80s. Miles better. That’s a great thing - but as I said above, sex-ed can’t keep up with what children are being exposed to. We’re not talking about Playboys and R-Rated movies here.

You didn’t really get my point, no. My point was that some children are being bombarded with sexual information from all angles, and it’s having unintended consequences. We essentially opened a new all-encompassing type of media and barely tried to regulate it.

This isn’t true.

The internet has been around since the late 90s at the earliest…that’s when some kids started freely accessing adult content.

When I was a kid…(and I grew up unsupervised and poor with one working parent - I was free range)…porn mags were like the holy grail. I literally didn’t see one until I was about 14 and I found one in somebodies forest fort. So think about that…not only could I not find a porn mag…but the person that had one had to go hiking to “use” it.

I mean…we also had homophobic molester gym teachers teaching us health class…

There’s got to be a workable happy medium between no access and no information - and everything always all the time to the max.

Eh? “Interest” isn’t what the mainstream media is pushing on us.

Totally depends on on what you mean by “limited government”. If you mean “small for the sake of being small”, or “I want the government out of my life”, then you’re likely something else…closer to a right libertarian…or what many folks (incorrectly) just call a libertarian.

Also depends on what you mean by “left” and “direct democracy”.

All these terms are fraught and we need more info to answer you.

If you mean “I want to vote on everything and I don’t trust the government to make decisions”, when you say direct democracy…then you’re basically a crazy person. Direct democracy works great with a small coop…not when it comes to government of any size. What happens when you have direct democracy in a government is the people pass conflicting laws and half of them can’t be exacted…and more terrible things like that.