Who decides this? (hint, a settlement or court case in all likelihoods) In reality, there is a broad spectrum of opinions and I'd rather see people put in the relationship time with their children over deferring to the government to save us from unpleasant speech. Perhaps certain laws (eg. no smartphone until 12) is the only way to break the loop of "all the other kids have it, I'll be a loser" that both parents and children have anxiety over alike.
The company is de-risking. Blame the government instead, or the people who elected them. I believe it is well known around HN that "save the kids" or age assurance legislation would always end up this way.
It's the nanny state dynamic. Parents are avoiding responsibility for their own children, instead demanding that the schools, teachers and government take on the unpleasant, confronting and often difficult role.
> unsuitable for minors
Who decides this? (hint, a settlement or court case in all likelihoods) In reality, there is a broad spectrum of opinions and I'd rather see people put in the relationship time with their children over deferring to the government to save us from unpleasant speech. Perhaps certain laws (eg. no smartphone until 12) is the only way to break the loop of "all the other kids have it, I'll be a loser" that both parents and children have anxiety over alike.
The company is de-risking. Blame the government instead, or the people who elected them. I believe it is well known around HN that "save the kids" or age assurance legislation would always end up this way.
It's the nanny state dynamic. Parents are avoiding responsibility for their own children, instead demanding that the schools, teachers and government take on the unpleasant, confronting and often difficult role.
OK.