Non-leaders in leadership positions have turned out to be quite contagious and potentially more deadly than real medical disease.
>block access entirely to anyone under 16
>curfews and algorithm restrictions for 16 and 17
To protect minors best (and everybody else) their actual age needs to be kept off the internet.
Besides their actual identity, as protective parents have known for decades.
Completely. No compromises. Whatever it takes.
That was figured out a long time ago.
This emerging moronism among UK big-shots is just the opposite of that.
What about the other end of the spectrum?
Could very well be funded as a diversion from a parallel intent to tabulate the exact age of senior citizens who might be equally exploitable if not more so depending on their age and resources.
>This isn't primarily a child safety measure, it's the state deciding which grown-up content an algorithm should favour.
Wouldn't the most lucrative targets for algorithmists be those having greater retirement funds, and facing eventual cognitive decline rather than teenagers possessing few resources, not legally able to sign their money away, and expected to become better educated and more aware as years go by?
All of this makes me sick
How about a barf bag with that?
Non-leaders in leadership positions have turned out to be quite contagious and potentially more deadly than real medical disease.
>block access entirely to anyone under 16
>curfews and algorithm restrictions for 16 and 17
To protect minors best (and everybody else) their actual age needs to be kept off the internet.
Besides their actual identity, as protective parents have known for decades.
Completely. No compromises. Whatever it takes.
That was figured out a long time ago.
This emerging moronism among UK big-shots is just the opposite of that.
What about the other end of the spectrum?
Could very well be funded as a diversion from a parallel intent to tabulate the exact age of senior citizens who might be equally exploitable if not more so depending on their age and resources.
>This isn't primarily a child safety measure, it's the state deciding which grown-up content an algorithm should favour.
Wouldn't the most lucrative targets for algorithmists be those having greater retirement funds, and facing eventual cognitive decline rather than teenagers possessing few resources, not legally able to sign their money away, and expected to become better educated and more aware as years go by?