Education level is less important than equality is.
Marriage is traditionally a terrible bargain for women, but it was the only choice they were allowed to make. Now, they can make their money and buy property and have kids on their own.
A lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional. They have to make women want to be with them, and a lot of women just aren't willing to compromise on equality these days.
It may seem like this makes sense, but in most places it's the opposite. Low income women are single mothers at a higher rate than women with high salaries.
In most western countries, low income women do not become much poorer if they become single mothers. In some places, it increases their living standards. But for upper middle class families, a breakup tends to be costly.
Also, there seems to be shared causal factors that lead to both stable relationships and financial stability. Such as impulse control, mental/physical health and the ability to postpone gratification.
You don't need a house to have kids. Plenty of people don't and they do just fine. And if they're choosing to have a kid on their own, they've planned out finances, too. Fertility treatments aren't cheap.
>lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional.
Cool, child support and alimony optional now. Right? Because it's always easy to be independent with OPM. People forget single moms became far more practiced after the state incentivized breaking up families.
Whether they have a marriage certificate might not matter, but the stats are clear that children raised by single moms are correlated with a lot of bad outcomes including far more likely to end up victims of the prison industrial complex. If you only give a shit about yourself and not your offspring, maybe that doesn't matter
If you can only bond with computer software and not other humans, there's something pathological going on there. You definitely have some severe issues that should be worked out in therapy.
You're free to to make your own site with your own moderation controls. And nobody will use it, because it'll rapidly become 99.999% spam, CSAM and porn.
Actually it seems like with these recent rulings, we will be free to use major social media platforms where the choice of moderation is given to the user, lest those social media platforms are otherwise held liable for their "speech".
I am fully fine with accepting the idea that if a social media platform doesn't act as a dumb pipe, then their choice of moderation is their "speech" as long as they can be held fully legally liable for every single moderation/algorithm choice that they make.
Fortunately for me, we are commenting on a post where a legal ruling was made to this effect, and the judge agrees with me that this is how things aught be.
It's also classic commercial activity. Because 230 exists, we are able to have many intentionally different social networks and web tools. If there was no moderation -- for example, if you couldn't delete porn from linkedin -- all social networks would be the same. Likely there would only be one large one. If all moderation was pushed to the client side, it might seem like we could retain what we have but it seems very possible we could lose the diverse ecosystem of Online and end up with something like Walmart.
This would be the worst outcome of a rollback of 230.
They'll just make something up for publicity if they don't get something useful.
reply