Post by @romli@social.vivaldi.net

@romli@social.vivaldi.net

2026-09-18 14:24 UTC

@ibboard@hachyderm.io @ahltorp@mastodon.nu @markwyner@mas.to That is akin to saying that in every scenario the child is entirely, and only, the parents responsibility and no-one else, least of all the government, should do anything to limit the freedom of children to do as they please. Yes a parent should not let a young child wander off but if that did happen for some reason, they got lost say, most normal people would expect society to step in and prevent harm to the child. You would expect there would be limits on where, and for how long, people might allow that child to 'explore the world'. Clearly that is not a minority viewpoint, and the EUKidsAct wouldnt have been proposed if there was not a lot of support for restricting social media for under 13s

Replies (2)

@ahltorp@mastodon.nu 2026-09-18 15:04

@romli@social.vivaldi.net @ibboard@hachyderm.io @markwyner@mas.to I have no idea how you're able to go from "4-year olds should be helped by others if they're lost" to "13-year olds should not be able to participate in meetings".

Open ##5043273
@ibboard@hachyderm.io 2026-09-18 16:13

@romli@social.vivaldi.net @ahltorp@mastodon.nu @markwyner@mas.to That's not what it's akin to at all. The rise of Trump in the USA and Reform in the UK shows that policy isn't driven by informed consent but by paranoia, bigotry and disinformation where there's simple answers to complex problems, of which "think of the children" is just one flavour. But it's apparent from your other posts that you don't actual have an argument here, or are just arguing for the sake of arguing, so I can't be bothered pointing out the flaws in your latest scenario and what an ACTUAL real-life equivalent would be like.

Open ##5043277