But how would that header be verified?

It has to be verified at some point by someone.

That header could also easy be used to exploit children online. All I would need to do is a simple intercept to log headers.

Either trust parents to do their jobs fully, and then hold them accountable, or draw a line at which point a child can be reasonably held responsible.

If a 6 year old steals, it’s the 6 year olds fault. They’re tried differently, but they still know bette, this isn’t any different. But obviously a 6 year old should not be accessing porn for a plethora of reasons.

We disagree on the foundation of your argument, and that’s okay. The end state, I can 100% get behind and that’s some common ground.

Kids are babied already but if 14 year olds can vote in party elections, and 16 year olds can consent to sexual intercourse with adults, then I don’t think restricting porn is our problem. Either kids can make decisions, or all of these laws need to align with each other more logically.

We have taken parents rights away to allow children to make decisions on their gender and name changes, yet we expect parent to be responsible for their actions like accessing porn.

I could not care less about whatever the final say is on age restrictions, but if there are gonna be rules, at least make them make sense you know? I also do not love that I have to verify my identity to use the internet. Look at the UK and how that’s working out there even without IDs. Talk about authoritarian control.

This stuff is the whole reason I switched to this platform.

I love that we’ve gone so far that finally the left and right are on the same page. This is the progress I’ve dreamed of.

Giving the government more power is like letting someone beat you up for his fare when you could just walk 1km.

I didn’t know this existed and you just made my life

If it comes to it, there won’t be a conventional battle. We will take them out from within.

In the wise words of the Arrogant Worms, “We’ll take a boat to Washingtooooooon! And burn the White House twice!”

I mean, advocating for eating people is in itself a crime, so maybe the bot thought you were trying to push for cannibalism? 😂

I feel like you missed my “loose statement” point

This actually makes sense. The problem though, will be the same reason fact checkers failed; personal and institutional bias on what’s considered acceptable.

Only an unbiased AI could do this well, and that’s a loose statement.

Every Reddit mod is thriving in victim culture. The instant someone makes a complaint, they become a victim, and the smooth brained mods are incapable of removing their anchoring bias from their brains when making a decision.

To be clear, they’re talking about banning right wing people. Reddit is one of the most liberal platforms you will find.

You can’t even talk economics on Reddit without being downvoted to fuck, or banned.

I am a centrist, and I routinely had posts removed and got banned from communities for saying things from actual textbooks taught currently in universities.

No one is attacking the free speech of the left unless it’s radical and advocating for physical harm.

The irony

The irony in this statement is deafening.

That is usually how severance packages work