New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as “more private” or “less permanent” due to the alleged “core design problem” and “inherent danger” of Snap’s disappearing messages. The state’s complaint noted that the FBI has said that “Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted.”

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is just plain wrong.

      Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.

      Just one example: child labour laws.

      I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          What about child support paid by parents who are separated?

          What about welfare laws ensuring a minimum standard of care for children?

          What about social security for families?

          What about minimum age of consent?

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            What about this one particular gain of sand I found that’s blue? Look, here’s another and another. Clearly, all sand is blue and beaches are blue. Don’t argue, or I’ll show you the 6 grains of sand I found.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              What a silly thing to say.

              You’ve made an assertion, I’ve provided examples to the contrary, and the best you’ve got is a grain of sand metaphor?

              Obviously, it depends how many laws purported to protect children actually do. The examples I’ve provided form the bedrock of the modern family structure. They’re not insignificant grains of sand.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m not going to do a survey of every law in human history to satisfy your autistic contrarianism. I’m just gonna make fun of you.

                • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You can make fun if me all you like. This far you’re not doing very well.

                  You don’t need to survey every law in human history, you just need to support your assertion, which you seem completely unable to do.

                  We all say silly things from time to time. Obviously you’ve just parroted something you heard somewhere else and didn’t really think it through. Most people can just own their mistakes. Only idiots double down, and cowards start ranting about sand.