I think it's more likely we'd see term limits and balanced budget amendments. Possibly even the power for states to override federal laws, with a supermajority.
I'd like to see other things, like the commerce clause returning to its original meaning, but like you said, it's already a high bar.
> I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo.
I like this point. I feel like the tech community just figured politicians would forget about the issue. Instead of working together to develop a solution.
By providing technical means to implement such censorship in "more acceptable" ways, you lower the political bar for its passing.
Not only that, but once you do so, you effectively concede that such censorship is valid to begin with, which can and will be used against you to pass further laws along those lines in the future. And if those laws cannot be implemented without ditching all that privacy you worked so carefully to respect in your compromise, well, too bad about that.
No. The tech community absolutely has the right to refuse to provide technical means and argue any views they want.
However we're seeing what happens next. Politicians write laws anyway forcing the tech community to do what they want.
I am just saying that in hindsight a bit of cooperation may have resulted in a less privacy invasive solution. I guess with the supreme court ruling it's too late now. The politicians have already won.
Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders?
> There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers.
Then everyone will just follow a YouTube tutorial to reinstall their operating system and bypass restrictions. There were TikTok videos teaching kids how to steal cars, would there not be easy to follow instructions to bypass whatever client side filtering is implemented?
I get where you're coming from, but mandated client side filtering has been tried and has been ridiculed as a complete failure every time. Attempts have been made to market and provide filtering products to parents with little effect, with them either being easy to bypass or difficult to use.
It's actually kind of interesting to see the people who were fighting against client side filtering are now advocating for it, because server side restrictions are the next logical step.
This would actually be an effective way to teach kids about technology. If they learn enough to install their own OS, let them have their smut.
I’m hearing more and more how younger generations don’t have what people used to call basic computer skills, because everything just kind of works now. Putting up some road blocks that require research and hands on tinkering to solve, is an invaluable part of the learning process.
While I wouldn't put it that way, I definitely agree that local device technical obstacles are the best conduit for learning as a youth. As a kid and young teen during the 1995-2005 era there were a lot of hoops to figure out and jump through as a gamer with Mac and then Windows ME. There were no video guides or wikis - just print manuals and text forums. Needing to upgrade the family computer RAM from 128 mb to 512 mb to get WoW above 2-3 FPS was a formative experience.
One could say the same of server/cloud obstacles, but because those systems are afar and opaque, it's easy to be content copy-pasting scripts. And there is less sense of progression and ownership since it doesn't involve building up your own environment.
> Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders?
This might be the least bad option. If it prevents server side enforcement, then settling on government enforcement of the commercial status quo might be less bad.
And what you describe is already the case for almost all devices anyway. The commercial incentives are there. And sadly, from a security PoV it is also quite valuable.
> Children with autism or ADHD might struggle in some ways, but be better off in others. It seems clear that there is no objective reason they are worse than a neurotypical person, so if a "cure" to these conditions was developed, you would have some degree of moral quandary.
I normally lurk HN but created an account because I see a lot of comments about this. Maybe I can offer some insight.
I was diagnosed with high functioning aspergers at a young age. After years of OT and work I am able to live a fairly normal life. I don't talk about it, and I could count the number of people who know on my fingers. It's hard for me to gauge this, but if you met me I doubt you'd realize unless you were looking for it.
To the world I look like I have things together, but there's nothing I wouldn't give to be normal. I don't understand the push to accept it over searching for a cure, if such a thing is possible.
Amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 38 states. That's a pretty high bar for what you're suggesting.