That's my point. A parent should keep a child out of a fire, right? If they don't, do we as a society let the child burn because it was unlucky enough to have crappy parents?
I’d be perfectly happy with this answer if the only states proposing this “for the children!” nonsense weren’t deep red racist bigot states that want ro police women across state borders.
If red states are doing something I want to do the opposite.
I would usually agree with this statement, but the truth is that social media does way more harm than good when it comes to teenagers.
Is it really the government's job to police what every teen does on the Internet though? I think that's for the parents to do.
It is the parents job, but what do you do when the parents don't do that job?
There's a lot of things parents should be doing but some don't. That however is a whole different argument.
That's my point. A parent should keep a child out of a fire, right? If they don't, do we as a society let the child burn because it was unlucky enough to have crappy parents?
I’d be perfectly happy with this answer if the only states proposing this “for the children!” nonsense weren’t deep red racist bigot states that want ro police women across state borders.
If red states are doing something I want to do the opposite.
When it comes to the big corporate platforms, yes.
When it comes to the Fediverse, no.
Then let parents deal with it. This conservative "for the chillldrun" talking point always ends in cons trying to take us back to 1750.
Most parents either care too little or too much about what their children do.
It is better to take some things to a more neutral ground.