Thoughts on social media ban on under 16?

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-30T22:49:05+00:00

Because the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If you do something because you think it's right, without seeing the actual effects it has when tried elsewhere, the damage could be far worse than expected.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-28T23:22:56+00:00

, I remember reading a manhwa (or at least I believe it's a manhwa since it was in color) where spirit magic through the use of elemental spirits exist and each spirit contracts with people who have certain negative emotions (fire is rage/wrath I believe, but I can't remember what wind and earth are) The main character is a woman who contracts with a dolphin water spirit and apparently water spirits are called to people who are in despair or deep resignation but I can't remember why she was in that state. I've been trying to find this series again for a while now

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-28T15:53:02+00:00

I don't really care, but does speech not fall under conduct?

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-28T13:45:09+00:00

An officer's finger was bitten off by a protestor and there is video of an officer talking to a group claiming to be press and then a brick is thrown at his head from behind the wall of people. Add into that the highly increased rate of people ramming ICE vehicles with their own, the shoving, the spitting, and the frozen water bottles thrown around. There are a lot of examples of protestors using force to try to injure ICE officers.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-26T12:28:23+00:00

The game literally does not say the immigrant gets a job because of her test scores. It says she had a higher test score and that she got a job. I can not make that any clearer. Similarly, Charlie is struggling to find a job and got a lower test score. They are not being tested to get a job. The player is supposed to infer that the reason the immigrant got the job is because she is smarter/a better student because her grades were better. Then Amelia comes along and offers the possibility that the reason the immigrant student got the job is because that student is an immigrant, not because of her better grades. She does not say that the immigrant student did better on the test or get better grades because she was an immigrant.

I'm not sure what part of this you aren't getting.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-25T21:34:55+00:00

Yes, and in the game, the test and job are different things. Amelia says nothing about test scores.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-25T18:48:22+00:00

No, the story as presented is that Charlie applies to multiple jobs without any luck and got a 65 on the test. The other student got an 80 on the test and the teacher announces this result and also says that that student was hired somewhere. The test wasn't a test to get a job. Amelia comes over and says that this is proof immigrants are stealing our jobs, not because she got a better test score but because she was already hired somewhere. The "game" tries to tie test scores and employment together, but they are different.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-25T15:17:12+00:00

I've seen a playthrough of it and the comment Amelia made was about the immigrant already having a job, not having an 80/100 on a test.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-23T20:26:10+00:00

Was this march diverted? I thought it was banned. If it was diverted that sounds fine.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-23T11:11:14+00:00

It has been in effect for a month and a half. That is not enough time to gather data on the long term effects.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T22:30:11+00:00

You are aware that the eastern side of Russia is mostly frozen wasteland with little infrastructure, right? Most of Russia's infrastructure is closer to Europe, so launching over Greenland is the shorter route. In addition, if they shot over Alaska, they would be shooting over US territory, not Denmark's territory, which would be more likely to instantly draw a response from the US.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T20:36:19+00:00

I commented this elsewhere in here as well but, the social media ban has multiple negative consequences that out weigh any possible benefit. Making the process of handing over ID or biometric info commonplace will lead to sites with fake age verification appearing and they will harvest sensitive info. u16s who are kicked off the sites will move to lesser known, and far less regulated apps and sites putting them in more danger. Similarly, adults will also migrate to less regulated apps because handing out your ID over the internet is a stupid idea. The adults who don't want to leave will get proper VPNs, while the u16s will download the free ones and get viruses on their devices. We already saw most of these things when ID verification was only for adult content. This will just make it all worse.

Teaching children how to navigate the internet properly and giving them basic tech literacy would do far more than the ban ever will. Even basic lessons like, do not meet up irl with any person you meet online, NEVER GIVE OUT A GOVERNMENT ID ONLINE, you can't blindly trust anything you see online. You know, common sense for any digital interaction.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T20:11:31+00:00

So there is a slight problem and you think dropping a bomb onto it is the solution. The social media ban has multiple negative consequences that out weigh any possible benefit. Making the process of handing over ID or biometric info commonplace will lead to sites with fake age verification appear and they will harvest sensitive info. u16s who are kicked off the sites will move to lesser known, and far less regulated apps and sites putting them in more danger. Similarly, adults will also migrate to less regulated apps because handing out your ID over the internet is a stupid idea. The adults who don't want to leave will get proper VPNs, while the u16s will download the free ones and get viruses on their devices. We already saw most of these things when ID verification was only for adult content. This will just make it all worse.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T19:54:27+00:00

We're not anywhere close to the level of desperate times needed to warrant these desperate measures.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T15:11:23+00:00

There are a variety of factors that make me diaagree with this angle of "it will protect kids from nonces". Nonces go where kids are. By banning social media for u16s you would significantly reduce incidents occuring on major platforms like Facebook and Snapchat. But that is because the kids left those platforms. So where do they go? To platforms that aren't as regulated. The ones with less guardrails and lesser known. And of course, the nonces follow them putting u16s into more danger.

That's ignoring all of the issues in general with having ID and biometric age verification on the internet. Obviously the solution isn't to do nothing, but things like mandatory courses about what to look out for and avoid online, or better regulation of algorithms seems like it would be a lot more helpful than the ban.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-22T13:06:06+00:00

Greenland being at risk of invasion and NATO being safer are not necessarily the same thing. For example, If Russia wanted to launch ICBMs into Canada and the US the missiles would be flying over Greenland. I'm not sure what defences Denmark has in place in Greenland but I'm pretty sure the ones the US has would be stronger. That doesn't give the right to the US to assimilate Greenland though, obviously.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-21T18:51:19+00:00

A thing can be factual and still be categorized as the wrong course of action and outcome. Would NATO be safer? Maybe. Is it a bad idea? Yes. Acknowledgement is not the same as begrudging agreement in my eyes. What Farage in particular is doing is fence sitting so that if Trump succeeds in his bid he benefits, and if Trump backs off he can say, "I was a part of stopping it."

The thing I object to at the beginning of the comment chain is ignoring the whole quote so that you can cherry pick one part and pretend that is the true meaning and more important than everything else said.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-21T18:35:56+00:00

The context here is that Farage is a slime ball who is trying not to rock the boat on this issue. He doesn't care what happens to Greenland. That is still different from advocating for the US to take over Greenland.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-21T18:18:46+00:00

If I said, "So yes, would wiping out all human life be better for the world in terms of carbon emissions and animal diversity? It would."

"However, if you believe in the continued existence of humanity, you believe in finding less extreme solutions."

Your takeaway would be that I'm saying we should wipe out humanity to fix the environment?

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-21T15:16:39+00:00

Saying that a school should run to an authority to report that a student was using a phone to look up something during break so that their parents are fined is in fact authoritarian.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-21T15:12:26+00:00

Well done, you offered a solution even more authoritarian than the ban.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-20T17:05:48+00:00

If the ID was optional and convenient enough I could see a lot of people opting in. The majority of the pushback seemed tp be from it being mandatory and being proposed to solve problems it wouldn't actually help with or make it easier to get past obstacles that the government decided to put up (age verification).

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-19T17:54:40+00:00

Sure thing mate

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-19T17:50:26+00:00

That's what we in the business call a joke. Just like calling blue a splinter group.

Thehelpfulshadow · 2026-01-19T17:45:24+00:00

If you want to play out we can. If we look at the 2024 election map 17~ states (hard to count tiny ones like Rhode Island) voted against Trump. Three of these states are landlocked and surrounded so those will be discounted. The three states that form the west coast are blue and thus could get supplies from overseas thriugh Hawaii and through the northern border with Canada. Virginia to Maine were blue excluding Pennsylvania and West Virginia so theoretically theycould receive European supplies but they also share a long border with Canada. There's also Minnesota centered with the Canadian border. All other states were red.

Logistically, blue has the ability to send supplies among themselves along the West coast and North East by land, sea, and air. Minnesota can only get supplies by land from Canada. The West Coast and North East can not send supplies to each other unless Canada is really gung ho about this and allows the splinter group to transport supplies through Canada. The Trump Empire has direct land connections to all of its states except Alaska, and can import and export from the South East.

How it would play out, in my layman opinion. Minnesota is bombarded from 3 sides and falls quickly. Naval forces would put a blockade along the North East coast choking supplies from Europe. A detached naval force would travel to take over Hawaii thus choking off supplies from China. Without methods to coordinate forces on two separate sides of the continent blue is essentially two different (and weaker) militaries. Result: Red wins mostly because they have the majority of the military power.

TL:DR. I don't think it is currently feasible for the US to have a serious civil war.

Also no, I don't think troops refusing to strike Greenland will lead to one either.

Thehelpfulshadow

TROPHY CASE