Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for privacy. But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.

I’d even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    C’mon, don’t be that dense, it’s is a metaphor explaining that people are more likely to accept change if done gradually as opposed to all at once.

    unless they were lobotomised.

    Look around. Think of the average person, half of the people are below that person’s intelligence and a good number of them vote.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      C’mon, don’t be that dense

      I don’t think it’s “dense” to point out that your metaphor depends on a common misunderstanding of an experiment. An experiment where the true result actually is an argument against your point.

    • Womble@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I know its a metaphor, but you can come up with any metaphor you want its still just speculation based on nothing. It’s precicily the same argument that conservatives made about gay marriage: this is just the thin end of the wedge, it starts with allowing people to marry people of the same sex and then they’ll move on to incest and bestiality.

      Its a crap argument, if you want to oppose something show how this wither makes things worse or how it makes worse things easier to happen in the future. A good example would be the freedom restricting legislation brought in after 9/11. Despite assurances at the time that it would just be used against “terrorists” there was nothing in it to garuntee that, at you could make the argument that the legislation with no further changes could be used to do harm. Lo and behold it was.

      Just pointing at something and saying “slipperly slope” or “boiling the frog” is not an argument against something unless you can show how it makes the next step easier, and I havent seen any actually thought through argument how this does make mandatory identification easier.