schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de

ja wie gesagt, bei mir funktioniert es eh schon die ganze Zeit :D

multiple operating systems, I’m not so sure but I can’t imagine that it’s impossible

The keyword is virtualization.

??? Highly unclear what exactly you are imagining.

allowing your kid

Well, I don’t have children myself. If I did, I would be able to observe their development and decide for myself which aspects of adult life they are developmentally ready for, and which not; including whether they should have unsupervised access to the Internet. The government doesn’t need to be involved in that.

the liberal consumption of alcohol and possibly periphenalia of the illegal and damaging sort and the occasional violence committed by and against the customers, while also leaving them in the company of uninhibited individuals not quite sound of mind

All of those things have nothing to do with access to information, which is what my argument is limited to. I do think it makes sense to have minimum ages for the consumption of alcohol and other drugs in order to prevent young brains from being damaged or becoming physically addicted. Looking at nudity isn’t by itself damaging or physically addictive; those other things are.

OK, that is probably true. But that wasn’t the talking point in the original article. The vast majority of online interactions, no matter where, are not abuse or exploitation.

Ultimately, the Internet is meant to be a worldwide communication medium that allows everyone to communicate with everyone. That’s literally its central purpose. If parents think their children aren’t developmentally ready to communicate with a wide variety of people, they shouldn’t be giving them access to a communication medium whose entire purpose is to enable them to do so.

Honestly, I wouldn’t see much of a problem with this either. I found it utterly stupid when I was a minor that there were (supposed to be) restrictions on what information I could access, and now that I’ve been an adult for a while, I don’t find it any less stupid and wonder what the big deal would have been.

But whatever the justification for restricting this is, how is it “abuse and exploitation” to let people do the things they actively want to do? Abuse and exploitation are generally things people want not to happen in their lives.

while protecting them from abuse and exploitation

I don’t even remotely understand this talking point. Like, seriously, I wonder if these people live on the same planet as I do. How is it “abuse and exploitation” to allow someone, of any age, to access something they actively want to access?

Revenue so far: $0

and let us hope it stays that way

bei mir sieht alles normal aus

Huh I guess that really makes me think

I’ve been playing Cities: Skylines for more than ten years and never noticed it had a homelessness mechanic.

I would not do that without first looking into applicable laws regarding legal liability for content and requirements to remove things. Depending on where in the world you are, this can be a minefield.