| "we've all had an encounter with some creep in some random chat room to" My parents generation survived lead in gasoline and they never wore seatbelts or helmets. "I think I can do a better job than the government :)" Is exactly what their parents said about the government telling them they have to get their kids to wear seat belts and helmets. I don't think this argument works for two reasons: 1) It don't address the materiality of the concern. If 'creeps in chat rooms' are causing material harm, it's an issue, then youre making the 'anti vaxxer' / 'anti seatbelt' / 'anti helmet' argument. I'm not saying you are - if 'creeps in chatrooms' really is a 'lesser issue' - then you're not making a bad argument at all. The real issue is the 'materiality' of these things. 'Creeps in chatrooms' is a harder thing to assess, but it's real, if it is real, we can't just dismiss it. 2) "I think I can do a better job than the government " If someone wants to protest the governments current age restrictions cigarettes - and also not vaccinate their kids - that's a choice. But this argument is usually made by people who don't have kids in their life and haven't yet realized that 'the all or nothing internet' is not really a choice, it's chaos. Lack of very basic regulations means people aren't afforded the opportunity, in a way the government is dictating that 'kids will get guns and porn and that's it'. The alternative argument - is that we can have age restrictions and parents can then be in a position to actually be parents, and make a choice. 'Slippery slope notwithstanding' ... because it's a complciated issue |