This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Where I live there's a government ID system you can choose to link up to your phone. It provides access to a lot of basic government services without the need to visit an office. Sure, you have to prove your identity one time. But after that it's fine for years. Your bank can interface with this system to prove your identity and now you have access to a host of banking services. This is a very clear and direct quality of life improvement that could not be possible without some database somewhere that can interface with your phone knowing exactly who you are.
ID theft is hardly a relevant problem here. Because it's a known quantity, there are safeguards and insurances in place to ensure that you can't lose too much if you fall victim to it. It's not much different from the risk of losing a credit card for that matter.
Service providers have plausible deniability since you can't prove or verify a users age beyond just asking the user like they do now. However, if you could prove age, you could start holding service providers that don't adequately respect that age accountable. OS ID Age verification provides the mechanism for that change. I'm not saying things will become perfect, but perfect need not be the enemy of the first steps on a long road to improvement.
Just to add, the government may leak things and pay pittance in return, but that's still better than having your info leaked and nothing happening to those who leaked it.
I think mandatory ID for specific services is fine, my objection is mandatory ID to use the internet.
The problem isn't kids clicking "yes" on "am I over 18?" and seeing porn, the problem is kids clicking "no" and seeing porn anyways, because it's in YouTube Kids. If governments don't hold YouTube accountable for this today, I don't see why they would after mandatory ID.
Also note that OS "age verification" currently implemented in some states is just asking the users' age:
I do think this OS age verification will reduce kids being exposed to harmful content, and mandatory ID would reduce it further. I agree that's a good thing. The problem is these laws may introduce other problems that make them overall negative.
Specifically, I don't really object to the age verification in California and Colorado because it's lackluster: one can enter a fake birth date, and probably use an OS that refuses to implement it without enforcement. But I would object to mandatory ID, because governments and companies have repeatedly failed to secure sensitive data, and people should have an outlet to express views unsavory to those around them (since many people would retaliate against or be deeply hurt by certain views, even mundane views (from a general perspective)).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link