2003: children shouldn't tell their age, name, or personal information to anyone on the internet for their safety

[imbl@social.treehouse.systems]

2003: children shouldn't tell their age, name, or personal information to anyone on the internet for their safety

2026: children are legally required to tell their age, name, and personal information to everyone on the internet for their safety

[imbl@social.treehouse.systems]

yall im starting to think that the pedoligarchy might be trying to make kids less safe

[steff@soc.femme.cat]

@imbl
Soon, they'll need to provide nudes to keep themselves safe from "sexual predators"

[xyhhx@social.treehouse.systems]

@imbl the pedoligarchy

[imbl@social.treehouse.systems]

@xyhhx the universe injected that word directly into my thoughtstream 🥴

[xyhhx@social.treehouse.systems]

@imbl chat are we cooked

[imbl@social.treehouse.systems]

@xyhhx stick a fork in me jerry

[dataless@dice.camp]

@imbl @uastronomer It’s ok, though, this isn’t strangers. Just multinational companies with deep ties to authoritarian governments that have repeatedly shown that they can’t be trusted with anybody’s personal information. I’m sure they can be trusted with kids’ personal information.

[fluffykittycat@furry.engineer]

@imbl they're making trans kids more groomable by isolating them. It's literally a Jeffery Epstein conspiracy

[tcatinreality@mastodon.social]

@imbl

Yeah, things change.

In 2003, platforms were largely benign and parents needed to watch out for individuals.

In 2026, the platforms have optimised their algorithms to bring danger to children so government needs to regulate the platforms' access

[jlapoutre@mastodon.online]

@TCatInReality @imbl True, I see here a nice example of thesis, anti-thesis and propose the following synthesis:

- tell our kids to not leak their private information
- keep 'm off those predatory systems by all means
- ...
- Profit (but nor for the predators)

Finally a healthy but non monetary business model!

[tcatinreality@mastodon.social]

@jlapoutre @imbl

Yes! It's not necessarily either-or. I certainly agree with the first two bullets.

Not sure what you mean by the third.

[jlapoutre@mastodon.online]

@TCatInReality That third / final bullet point was a reference to and old stupid pun about the dotcom business models, from the early 2000s, going like this:

- build something stupid
- make lots of losses & debts
- ... (a "minor" detail we don't worry about now)
- Profit!

[tcatinreality@mastodon.social]

@jlapoutre

Got it.

Of course, now we see that the old dotcom model was all about using disruption to grab market share and pushing out IRL competitors. Then, enshittify away until profits spike.

[yacc143@mastodon.social]

@imbl Yeah, with Jeffrey dead, how are the elites to target their prey that does not identify itself properly online?

[reiddragon@fedi.catto.garden]

@imbl nah, no way, impossible. Are you saying the rich assholes who were friends with the pedophile who had a pedophilia island don't have the most bestest and purest intentions?

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@imbl What changed? In 2003 the olds thought internet chat venues were run by gay hackers and in 2026 they know it's now run by the Epstein class and which one do they trust more?

[cmdrsprocket@mathstodon.xyz]

@steff @imbl Remember that guy in Texas protecting women's toilets from males by camping inside - armed?

[mtorchiano@mastodon.uno]

@imbl
Age verification == neoliberism * fascism

[sylvhem@eldritch.cafe]

@imbl Every time I see some politician rage against people using pseudonyms on the Internet, I find it very funny because the reason I use one in the first place is that I was taught it was best practice when I was a child. I literally came up with my pseudo when I was around twelve years old and I had to register on Nintendo’s website.