confiscate phone, fine parents. children allowed locked down tablets only for school. any evidence of tampering results in long hours of detention at school and parents fined. if you want a police state for children, then implement a police state for children and those who choose to have them.
or be honest and say you want a police state for everybody.
How would you even detect the violations in the first place? How much resources would it take to enforce? How effective do you think that would actually be in practice?
Pretty unrealistic at actually being a workable solution, and obviously so.
You misunderstand my position. I don't want a police state for everybody. I think that's the greater of two evils. It's just from personal experience that I wrote about elsewhere in this thread, I know the depths of the horror of opting for the status quo. It's brutally fucked up.
But at least I'm honest enough to say I'd rather live in a free society where kids are subject to abuse than risk a full-on dictatorship where everyone is subject to a different kind of abuse. I'm willing to accept those kids as collateral, because at least it's only a subset of people as opposed to all people.
The thing that bothers me about the discussion is everyone I've talked to who is on the same side as me is either blissfully or willfully unaware of the reality of what's happening to large numbers of kids, or they won't be honest and say that even in the face of knowing the reality that they accept it's a sacrifice they are willing to make.
Simple math? If pedophiles make up 1% of the population and only 1% of them are actively targeting kids this way while the rest passively consume the results, then you've got 0.0001% of the population targeting ~25% of the population. There's not enough time in the day for it to happen to all the kids. Even the majority of the worst parented kids are skating through unscathed due to that alone. I think Chat Control is a bad proposition based on this alone, it's just not a good trade-off.
One of the things we learnt from the police in my niece's case was that even if you're the best parent there are still ways it can happen. They mentioned cases of videos taken on streaming apps where there were multiple girls in the video. E.g. the kids were having sleepovers with their friends etc. That absolutely blew my fucking mind, because I could never in a million years have imagined the possibility of a group of kids together in the same room flashing their tits and playing with themselves on camera in front of both each other and strangers with parents downstairs no less... and yet... apparently that's a thing.
Also, plenty of people have sudden changes in circumstances outside of their control that greatly change their capacity to handle life either permanently or temporarily, but that can be enough to allow things to start slipping through the cracks. E.g. your partner suddenly dies in an accident or from a health condition, and you're left heartbroken, depressed, and having to support the rest of the family to the best of your now much more limited ability. Heck maybe even the kids are just trying to fulfill some unmet needs.
But no, some people think it's fine to just always blame the parents as if it's possible for every parent to have always protected their kids in every single circumstance. News flash, it's not. Does it apply in some cases? Yes. Does it apply in all cases? No. It's just a convenient, lazy way to make sure they don't have to feel bad about their own personal views without really grappling with the full depth of the issue.
And take the parents out of the equation for a second and actually think of the children. They don't get to choose their parents or choose what happens to their parents. Is it fair to them personally that this happens? No.
Meaning 97% of parents are evaluating theoretical future based risks against real-world utility of entertainment, education and socialising, and choosing to opt for having it than not having. Presumably backed by decades of their own sample size n=1 data of "I used it, and it was mostly fine for me the vast majority of the time".
Contrast that with what you're suggesting. The data linked says that of the 3% of kids that don't have have internet access at home, only 2% of those don't have it for security and privacy reasons.
Policy makers have to make policy that's going to work for real people. Your ideas and suggestions read more like that physicist joke that ends in the punchline "I have a solution, but it will only work for spherical chickens in a vacuum".
> Meaning 97% of parents are evaluating theoretical future based risks against real-world utility of entertainment, education and socialising, and choosing to opt for having it than not having
right so the parents are making the decision and then you want a nanny state to look after the kids.
...implying all parents are always capable of making the correct decision at all times? Also, implying the state doesn't already do lots to look after the kids like say set the age they can drink, drive, buy tobacco, age of consent etc.
Guess we should just leave 100% of that up to the parents too? I don't imagine anything bad would happen in your perfect parents in a vacuum world, so we might as well.
yes, more centralised state control is exactly what we need. it's not like we have communities and neighbours that could step in - we all live in the middle of the forest after all.
Yeah... Yeah... my bad, I totally forgot about that. Get the community involved, makes perfect sense. Just send them to the Boy Scouts of America... Oh wait... oh shit... Oh that didn't turn out great. Never mind we'll just take em to church. Whoops... damn. Alright, well how about we put them in the local sports club. Shit.
Your super responsible community based approach just got your kids diddled hard.
