[rightbyte]

You argue against "individualist societies" but then blame "their parents" for not coping with the kinda impossible task of protecting their kids from big tech or the surveillance state.

It is a collective problem with collective solutions.

[pretzel5297]

I did not say anything about protecting kids from big tech or the state?

Even if I had, your argument is we must surveil more to protect the kids from the surveillance state?

[rightbyte]

I interpreted you as it was the parents responsibility to protect their children, ye.

I don't argue for a surveillance state. Authoritarians push authoritarian policies with convinient excuses. I do understand that.

I think there need to be a cultural shift and that involves the collective of parents not indivual families.

Like, my TV installed adtech shovelware over night and my son woke up early and watched it. Sport teams organize on Facebook. The school headmaster wants CCTVs. Door bell cameras are getting more and more common.

We can't fight those things as individuals.

[malfist]

So your solution to preventing "surveillance state" is to unmask everyone on the internet? Now who has the inconsistent argument

[i80and]

I don't know the parent's policy position, but it seems like they didn't express one, and you've just assumed they support deanonymization?

[rightbyte]

Ye this modern view that more and more assumes polarisation of stands on matters is kinda annoying. I don't support deanonymization.

[Forgeties79]

It’s become bog standard to just throw up extremely binary strawmen these days or otherwise bait people into arguments demanding sources that you can then point at and whine about. Zero attempt to understand or ask questions that clarify. Anything that avoids having to listen or express your own opinion in a substantive way.

[Forgeties79]

where did they say anything like that?