> The internet should be safe for everyone — at least on the surface.
Who defines "safe"?
I'm sure there are numerous people on this site that would feel unsafe from your not-so-subtle dig at the LGBTQ; should you no longer have the ability to communicate on the internet?
What method do you propose to allow acceptable users (IE adults) who want to access such content the means to do so, without compromising their privacy and operational security?
Otherwise, you're merely trading people's actual security and freedom for control.
Im frankly tired of negligent parents expecting the government to regulate away anything and everything that's not explicitly created for children on the internet.
Eh, there is a middle ground between permitting LGBT, Trans and reproductive health education and throwing extreme porn into people's faces?
This middle ground is definitely not what this law is seeking, but I just want to note that the opposite extreme position is just as dishonest. (Both are essentially the same motte/bailey argument, just with the motte and bailey swapped - and both implicitly assume that LGBT = porn)
Who defines "safe"?
I'm sure there are numerous people on this site that would feel unsafe from your not-so-subtle dig at the LGBTQ; should you no longer have the ability to communicate on the internet?
What method do you propose to allow acceptable users (IE adults) who want to access such content the means to do so, without compromising their privacy and operational security?
Otherwise, you're merely trading people's actual security and freedom for control.
Im frankly tired of negligent parents expecting the government to regulate away anything and everything that's not explicitly created for children on the internet.