This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto that is so much a better solution.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto one of those is much easier to do than the other.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto We must disobey age segregation and ageism.
-
@gabrielesvelto mentally some of the billionaires seem to be teenagers, so it could have same effect
@tymwol it's a shame we don't have a legal definition for a man-child
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto what's the point of banning kids from literal children's games, if a 5yo kid wants to use a tablet they would simply ask their parents to bypass the security and use it anyways. These laws are not protecting anyone
-
@gabrielesvelto mentally some of the billionaires seem to be teenagers, so it could have same effect
I beg to disagree here.
Where us oldies settle for the ”rational” (i.e. norm conformist & status quo preserving) option, teenagers and young adults are the ones to stay defending the moral high ground. Think of animal rights, LGBTQ+, fridays for future, and now sober curiosity. All youth movements.
Billionaires are more like infants kicking and screaming for more of everything. Difference is infants eventually become teenagers and young adults.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Great point.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto Let’s do both.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto me no sci-fi man, but:
What Data says.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto Social Media exclusively owned by teenagers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto Fediverse forever!
-
@gabrielesvelto Let’s do both.
Let's not. Kids are people, not property to be muted at a whim. If they have something to say, the government has no business stopping them from saying it in the place where the general public will hear them, and in 2026 that place is social media.
Frankly I'm shocked at how quickly freedom of speech flies out the window. When I was in school, I was taught that freedom of speech is sacred and our ancestors died for it! Am I the only one who took it to heart?
-
Let's not. Kids are people, not property to be muted at a whim. If they have something to say, the government has no business stopping them from saying it in the place where the general public will hear them, and in 2026 that place is social media.
Frankly I'm shocked at how quickly freedom of speech flies out the window. When I was in school, I was taught that freedom of speech is sacred and our ancestors died for it! Am I the only one who took it to heart?
And what would you sacrifice it for? The convenience of not having to set up parental controls on the devices you give your children? That hardly justifies the burden you'd impose on everyone else.
Are you perhaps worried that your kids will find some other adult who will give them another, unlocked device and social media account to use? Because even with age verification they can still do that!
-
@gabrielesvelto Social Media exclusively owned by teenagers.
-
@Space_Burger_Steve @txtechnician @gabrielesvelto
What a weird concept, social media owned by a non profit. I don't think it could scale.
What if instead of one social media site, someone were to make a protocol where a bunch of smaller ones that are a reasonable size to be run by a nonprofit or co op can talk to each other as if they were one big network?
@gbargoud @Space_Burger_Steve @txtechnician @gabrielesvelto
You could almost call it a 'federation'
, but without the 'starfleet command' bit. -
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto Banninq billionaires from owning anything
-
This post did not contain any content.
@gabrielesvelto ban billionaires from existing
-
@argv_minus_one @StaticR @gabrielesvelto maybe I should set up one for my teen!
