[roenxi]

> For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves.

Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever.

It is like the constant aggressive warfare the US is in - the US public clearly loathes it. Every single election they seem to vote for the candidate most vocally promising peace. I don't think it would be fair to say that the people keep accepting it, the dynamic is clearly that the political class refuses to acknowledge the hint.

[jolmg]

> Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever.

I think support can be quiet. I think politicians make a bet on how their constituents, including the quiet ones, will feel.

Do you think that on average if you pulled a person off the streets and asked them, they'd evaluate such policies as bad? I think seeing e.g. the awfulness of compromising encryption and device ownership requires at least a tech background, which most wouldn't have. Most would probably just think, "with this, there should be less reason to worry just leaving my child to their devices".