Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.
To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.
But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.
And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
People are understandably heated over this subject. That often results in heated reactions. It doesn’t invalidate their points, however, and to claim that it instead proves your point that surveillance is necessary could evidence a bias on your part when it comes to engaging with this very divisive topic.
I didn’t claim it invalidates their points. I’m saying that the same points can be made in a civilized way and the very toxicity of online discussions is direct result of online anonymity. And yes, I understand why assholes and children react emotionally when we suggest that they should reveal their identity. That doesn’t mean their behavior is justified.
I actually think it can be commendable to speak out in a situation you view as hostile. I also don’t condone the personal attacks some people might throw at those who voice opinions they don’t agree with.
I would also have to say that I would assume that you get that it’s not guaranteed people are going to be entirely civil when you essentially tell them that you think that the rights they believe in should be done away with.
And you kind of just did exactly what you said you didn’t, using these interactions as a validation of your claims against those of the people you disagree with.
Having said that, it’s often better to take the high road when we can. It’s possible that not everyone who disagrees with you (or me) is an asshole.
You mean I claimed it invalidates their points? I really don’t see how. Again, the points about usefulness of anonymity (which few people actually made) are not invalidated by the toxicity. People say “we need anonymity because X” (I don’t think any real argument was made here so I don’t even know what X is) and I say “the toxicity and misinformation outweigh the benefits of X”. The arguments for X are still valid and if someone can give examples of X that outweigh the negative results of anonymity I will change my mind. So far all I’ve seen is “it’s a slippery slope” and “you’re a fascist”.
Toxic for freedom!
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.