@nini @joepie91 @eniko yep, that's governments at the moment. It would be optimistic to think that governments would hold these massive companies to account.

I agree that it's not a great way to do it, but at least it's doing something. Maybe it'll lead to more effective measures later.

@mu @nini @eniko Something isn't actually better than nothing when it harms people as a side-effect, which this does.

@mu @nini @eniko (Or well, supposedly it's a side effect. I'm not so sure it was unintentional.)

@joepie91 @nini @eniko people are already being harmed by a lack of action. It's worth trying something if the net harm becomes lower.

No argument that there is harm is this approach, but is it more or less harm than what we are currently doing?

@mu @nini @eniko More. The reality of this kind of legislation is that the big social media platforms will find some legal construction to comply with whatever legislation gets produced without ever actually doing anything about the harm, but now queer teenagers in particular get cut off from their support communities, for example.

If I thought this would reduce net harm, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. It doesn't. It never will. Reducing the harm was never the point of this kind of "think of the children" rhetoric.

@joepie91 @nini @eniko do you think some people are genuinely concerned for the children?

I have had relatives die by their own hand, and unregulated access to the bad parts of the net were a part of that journey.

What we are doing now isn't working. We need to try something. Maybe this doesn't work maybe you're right that it'll make things worse, but then we will have tried something, and what if it works? What if it's a success? Or maybe it leads to other things which are better.

Throwing hands up and saying "we shouldn't try anything" or "this solution isn't perfect, we shouldn't look for solutions" is just going to let the rolling stone of current harm crush more people.

@mu @nini @eniko I'm not sure you've *really* read and internalized any of what I've said, and I have very little patience for this kind of "but we must do SOMETHING" rhetoric as a justification for known-harmful policy, so I'm going to step out of this discussion.

If you want to discuss this kind of topic seriously, then I would suggest starting by reading up on the past two decades of "think of the children" policy first, and exactly what those policies have achieved. Because you're still talking about this as if it's a new idea.