A letter I sent my senators, please consider similar.

[Josh]

Ken,

I think it’s entirely reasonable to:

#1, not allow minors to access pornography, as a society wide decision. (This is already the law of the land, actually.)

#2, otherwise allow minors free access to a wide variety of information without censorship.

Pornography is not “information”. There is no need for it. Whereas freedom of political speech is very important.

[temporal1]

.. I think it’s entirely reasonable to:

#1, not allow minors to access pornography, as a society wide decision. (This is already the law of the land, actually.)

#2, otherwise allow minors free access to a wide variety of information without censorship.

Pornography is not “information”. There is no need for it. Whereas freedom of political speech is very important.

THE FEDERALIST / “No, Age-Appropriate Library Restrictions Are Not ‘Book Bans’ “
“A public, taxpayer-funded entity refusing to purchase and disseminate a book does not constitute a ‘ban,’
contrary to media reports.”
https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/15/no ... book-bans/

This whole thing is blown ‘way out of perspective by those with no common sense and too much time, money+power.
It’s the duty of parents and those responsible for minors, dependents, to protect them. To refuse is to neglect if not abuse.

Speaking of “literature”
2019 / DrWojo: Orwell

[Outsider]

Oh, so you still want the internet to be full of garbage for teens to access.

You just want it to be YOUR garbage. Got it.

There's that "progressive" conceit.

When you say "political misinformation" you mean political ideas you don't agree with. I would say that would mean you only want YOUR political garbage, and what the elites in the District of Criminals approve of on the Internet. I don't need the NSA, the DHS, the CIA, or the Republican and/or Democrat parties determining what political information I should have access to.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? "Weapons of Mass destruction"? How much nicer it was going to be for the "people of Libya" once they took out Ghadaffi (there are open slave markets there). No thank you very much, sir, I don't need the government controlling my flow of political information.

Most of the "medical disinformation" was coming out of the government and the mainstream media. The vax that wasn't (if it was a real vaccine, I would not be sick- and no one who got it would be except for the perhaps .95% of the population who would contract the disease when they received the jab). Most people who have died from COVID have been jabbed- once the jab saturated the population.

That cretin Rachel Maddow's "You won't get sick, you won't spread it, and you surely won't die"- along with all of your other "trusted news sources" proved that parrots echoing the politicians only provide worthless information. The CDC and NHS have even had to walk back their hysteria over ivermectin.

What makes you think politicians are better at picking out medical advice for you or me? They're not doctors. We're just lucky that their collective "progressive" wisdom didn't kill as many people as socialist "agricultural science" did under Stalin and Mao.

I'll consult with my own doctor, thank you. And make my decisions based on something other than what a bunch of useless politicians believe.

I think teens can handle a different bunch of political ideas and can consult with their parents and their doctors on matters regarding their health- for the most part.

My goal is just to get the stuff that's going to mess up their heads behind an ".XXX" domain.

My Lord, man! Are you a totalitarian?

[Ken]

My Lord, man! Are you a totalitarian?

I'm not the one here proposing a new universal censorship regime and intrusive system of national ID that would be required for internet usage. That would be you.

I'm simply suggesting giving parents new tools through the cellular providers to better monitor and control what their children are doing.

[Outsider]

My Lord, man! Are you a totalitarian?

I'm not the one here proposing a new universal censorship regime and intrusive system of national ID that would be required for internet usage. That would be you.

It's no more a "censorship regime" than banning children from bars, strip clubs, XXX movie theatres, etc. And definitely no "universal". If you want to access that stuff, as an adult, you're free to do so.

This is all based on settled precedent, there's nothing new in the "censorship" angle- except perhaps it effectiveness.

I'm simply suggesting giving parents new tools through the cellular providers to better monitor and control what their children are doing.

There's no reason you, as a parent, can't or shouldn't demand all of that from a private company for you to enact over the accounts you provide your children. Go crazy with it. Ban any information you desire, it's your publishing house there.

I just don't want the things you suggest to be mandatory for all platforms and publishers for the wider world. And a simple token tied to information already as secure as it's ever going to be in Federal/State databases is a less intrusive way of providing certain identities without putting everyone behind Ken's firewall. You do what you want on your phones. Just don't try to tell me who's propaganda I've got to swallow in the wider internet.

[Ken]

My Lord, man! Are you a totalitarian?

I'm not the one here proposing a new universal censorship regime and intrusive system of national ID that would be required for internet usage. That would be you.

It's no more a "censorship regime" than banning children from bars, strip clubs, XXX movie theatres, etc. And definitely no "universal". If you want to access that stuff, as an adult, you're free to do so.

This is all based on settled precedent, there's nothing new in the "censorship" angle- except perhaps it effectiveness.

I'm simply suggesting giving parents new tools through the cellular providers to better monitor and control what their children are doing.

There's no reason you, as a parent, can't or shouldn't demand all of that from a private company for you to enact over the accounts you provide your children. Go crazy with it. Ban any information you desire, it's your publishing house there.

I just don't want the things you suggest to be mandatory for all platforms and publishers for the wider world. And a simple token tied to information already as secure as it's ever going to be in Federal/State databases is a less intrusive way of providing certain identities without putting everyone behind Ken's firewall. You do what you want on your phones. Just don't try to tell me who's propaganda I've got to swallow in the wider internet.

Your proposal was to put ALL social media behind a age-based firewall managed by the government. Not just obvious pornography which is already filtered on all the social media sites. But news, local information, knitting clubs, church web sites, school sites, basically all of the internet that is accessible on mobile phones.

You seem obsessed by your token idea. But that isn't the main issue. The main issue is WHO DECIDES what kind of information on the internet is going to require your government-issued token to access. That is the part that you haven't thought through.

My suggestion was to give parents better tools to control their children's phone use. You want it to be the government. And I'm the totalitarian here?

[Outsider]

Your proposal was to put ALL social media behind a age-based firewall managed by the government. Not just obvious pornography which is already filtered on all the social media sites. But news, local information, knitting clubs, church web sites, school sites, basically all of the internet that is accessible on mobile phones.

That's true, I'm over-simplified my goals. But yes, I am for putting all that stuff behind an age-based firewall. And, as I've said, there's plenty of precedent.

You seem obsessed by your token idea. But that isn't the main issue. The main issue is WHO DECIDES what kind of information on the internet is going to require your government-issued token to access. That is the part that you haven't thought through.

No, I've thought it through. Social media. No posting or interacting by people younger than 18-21. Because the encrypted token will keep you anonymous from the web, while assuring you're of age. Period.

My suggestion was to give parents better tools to control their children's phone use. You want it to be the government. And I'm the totalitarian here?

I have no problem with that. I think that would be a good thing. I think young kids and adults on social media are not a good thing.

[Ken]

Your proposal was to put ALL social media behind a age-based firewall managed by the government. Not just obvious pornography which is already filtered on all the social media sites. But news, local information, knitting clubs, church web sites, school sites, basically all of the internet that is accessible on mobile phones.

That's true, I'm over-simplified my goals. But yes, I am for putting all that stuff behind an age-based firewall. And, as I've said, there's plenty of precedent.

You seem obsessed by your token idea. But that isn't the main issue. The main issue is WHO DECIDES what kind of information on the internet is going to require your government-issued token to access. That is the part that you haven't thought through.

No, I've thought it through. Social media. No posting or interacting by people younger than 18-21. Because the encrypted token will keep you anonymous from the web, while assuring you're of age. Period.

My suggestion was to give parents better tools to control their children's phone use. You want it to be the government. And I'm the totalitarian here?

I have no problem with that. I think that would be a good thing. I think young kids and adults on social media are not a good thing.

And what do you define as "social media"?

Is MennoNet social media?
Is Discord social media?
Is YouTube social media?
Is WhatsAp social media?
Is 4Chan social media?
Is Reddit Social Media?
Are the Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo online game forums social media?
Is BePerk social media?
Is GameSpot social media?
Is Gaia social media?

[ohio jones]

I'm simply suggesting giving parents new tools through the cellular providers to better monitor and control what their children are doing.

That's a good thing that will probably work well for involved and caring parents. But you probably know better than I do that not all parents are, and that their children are likely to be at increased risk of inappropriate media usage.

I had a student a couple of years ago at a different school who was badly beaten by his stepdad and thrown out of the house and forced to couch surf with friends through the end of his senior year because the parents found out he was gay.

Do you suppose his phone is on a family plan?

[Josh]

I would be 100% fine with age verification former above things via ID.me or something similar.

As I’ve said over and over, no new federal ID scheme is needed.