[filoleg]

> Can you explain your thinking?

Not the person you are asking, but I can already guess what their reasoning most likely is gonna be.

Get a large sheet of paper and fill it with buzzwords like "tiktok", "groomers", "CRT", "lgbtq propaganda", etc. Throw a few darts at it, and you should get a possible semblence of the reasoning I would expect the grandparent comment user to give you.

I always try to give a poster the most charitable interpretation possible and steelman their argument before even considering making fun of it. But I legitimately struggle to come up with any charitable interpretation of an argument that claims "underage users browsing internet without state-mandated age verification is more dangerous than them working in a meatpacking facility or a slaughterhouse".

[mostertoaster]

That was my point. People would justify the one because it is “dangerous” for more subjective reasons, even though the other actual leads to real physical danger. But you could argue the other danger is more insidious and ultimately would harm more children.

[kevviiinn]

That's a pretty accurate description of reactionary reasoning