In the "olden" times, should have parents vetoed the usage of Usenet/forums/AIM/mIRC/ICQ/etc. just because horrible stuff could have been shared there?
Additionally, should parents monitor everything their kids do? Other than the privacy/lack-of-trust implications, not everybody has the time/ability/energy to do that
The pressure to review thousands of horrific videos each day – beheadings, child abuse, torture – takes a devastating toll on our mental health
What could be a solution for dealing with that? I wouldn't want to be exposed to that type of content even if I was paid to do so and had access to health support to deal with the aftermath every time.
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole - Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Shawn Colvin - I'll Be Back
Sonic Youth - Superstar (btw not originally by The Carpenters)
Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941)
I remember hearing about a similar experiment from the 70's in Canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment
a kindergarten-level understanding of German.
I love the serendipitous use of kindergarten, with it being of German origin :)
I fear that this will be used as a pretense to have a Real ID tied to all of your online accounts, and that it will be publicly facing.
And then if people come to your house after you share a wrongthink, or if part of who you are clashes with "the good ole days", well then that's just an unintended but necessary evil, so sit down and shut up.
The issue is, do they have the know-how for developing/maintaining a browser/engine?
If they manage to get ex-Firefox devs on board then they might be fine, but otherwise if they're on their own then that's like asking electricians and painters to build/maintain an entire house. They might not have the knowledge/experience to do so.
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to cover the explanation for the process, but I did find an explanation (linked in my other comment)
I tried many years ago but couldn't readily find an explanation for the process/reasoning, but I did find one now in the video here and it does make sense I also checked Wikipedia and learned more:
All fluoridation methods, including water fluoridation, create low levels of fluoride ions in saliva and plaque fluid, thus exerting a topical or surface effect. A person living in an area with fluoridated water may experience rises of fluoride concentration in saliva to about 0.04 mg/L several times during a day.[3] Technically, this fluoride does not prevent cavities but rather controls the rate at which they develop.
Fluoride's effects depend on the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.[51] About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is retained, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is retained. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis.[79] Drinking water is typically the largest source of fluoride.
Wouldn't it be better to give families vouchers for toothpaste and toothbrushes? Or have subsidized lower price ones available?
~~I never really understood how water briefly swishing through your teeth with some minimal amount of fluoride in it has any effect on the teeth.~~ (edit: explanation in the replies). Fluoridation comes across as a way for industry to legitimize toxic waste instead of having to treat it and dispose of it responsively and ecologically.
Meanwhile we are ingesting it when drinking tap water, along with our pets and all other animals that have access to the water supply, and we wash our hands with it and shower with it, and we ingest it further through crops/food that is grown/prepared with the water.
I used it very briefly. Doesn't it depend on the groups you join? There could also be horrible stuff in Facebook groups, WhatsApp groups, Telegram groups, etc.
Of course, there needs to be a way to report that type of content, and the platform should be held accountable for hosting/disseminating the reported content if it doesn't remove it. It's just that I don't think that banning access to a general platform is the right move.