I’ve been using bangs for a while, and I never thought of this myself! I’ll definitely start doing this.

Do you know of a good way to sync/export&import these keywords that does not involve the Firefox account thing?

His Japan & family vlogs are also really chill - he has become much more chill and proper. If you remember him from when he got big on YouTube 10 - 15 years ago, he was a completely different person!

I’m sorry that you had to go through that, and I must emphasize that I do not wish to “let” anyone be exposed to this. However, I remain unconvinced that it’s “more common than I think”. The amount of sexual assault that women are exposed to is unfortunately far, far more common, and a bigger problem that should take precedence in being dealt with.

Don’t take my word for it; look it up. But here, I’ll save you some time by spending my own:

https://worldmetrics.org/false-rape-allegations-statistics/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191137/reported-forcible-rape-cases-in-the-usa-since-1990/

https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/media/pdfs/sexualviolence-brief.pdf

Say out of 140 000 reports of rape in one year, 4% are false. That leaves us with 5600 false accusations. And according to the survey shown by CDC, there’s an estimated 1.4 million women raped in 12 months.

Here: https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/media/pdfs/sexualviolence-brief.pdf

Men have so much less reason to fear compared to women. This is not saying they have nothing to fear, but the measures taken by uber is an attempt to protect those who are MUCH more prone to sexual assault and harassment.

The fear of accusations is not covered in this survey, nevertheless, if men feel fearful of accusations, imagine what women feel when they fear actually being sexually assaulted.

It might be considered sexist, depending on who you ask.

The amount of males being falsely accused of sexual assault is much lower than the amount of females being exposed to sexual assault. Hence why there has been provided a measure for women at this scale, and not for men.

Unsure about the “need”, but with current systems, less people would be beneficial in a multitude of ways, indeed, as long as it’s a somewhat controlled reduction. The first thing to suffer is the business model based on infinite expansion, which if they follow other countries’ trend, they will start to cry about to the government pretty soon, demanding efforts into increased reproduction. (Like Japan making alcohol cheaper for youth, and China making condoms more expensive.)

It’s the exact same angle, but this helps. I’m now convinced this is not AI.

Thanks for proving me wrong! It’s hard not to be skeptical of videos these days…

Is it just me, or does it look AI generated? Here are the things that look off:

• The wind is blowing the flag, but not her hair (it remains perfectly still for the entire duration).
• The tree leaves in the background look like they are phasing/blending when they move with the wind?
• The woman holding the phone in the right of this video seems to be attempting to record, but is not pointing the camera in a reasonable direction?
• There is almost nothing going on in the video apart from the main character.
• They are standing in the woods with speakers at a rally?? Why not in the city? And even a park in the city should have some cityscape in the background?
• Did this happen recently? Green leafy trees are not in season in France yet, I believe?
• Behind the woman that is trying to film, there is a flag in the beginning to the video that seems to walk away by itself? And towards the end of the video the woman behind the woman recording is walking away the same direction, and you can see her head (height disparity with whoever would potentially be carrying the aforementioned flag).

Anyone have other independent sources on this event?

Edit: Added things that looks weird.

Yeah, there’s no way to be completely sure or safe, for better or worse.

But even if it’s not your own child, it takes a village. So if you are able to, as a safe and healthy individual yourself, you should hang out with the kid and talk about this stuff, and also converse with the parent about the child. I think with all this, there’s not a particularly big need of technological intervention. Although some simple restrictions don’t hurt.

Edit: Actually, I just recalled there being family-friendly DNS! This could be a good and simple measure for adventurous browsing. It doesn’t do anything for the content already on social media however.

There are plenty of apps that both provide restrictions upon the device as well as insight into how the device is used. But ultimately, IMHO, nothing beats open and transparent communication with your kid. Make sure they feel safe with you, and that they can share anything with you and you’d still be on their side. This way, they won’t have any reason to hide things from you, in fear of undesirable consequences. With this, the parent also has to actively engage in these conversations, not expect the kid to bring up everything of possible concern.

There are also parental control built-in with several apps. And on iPhones and Androids there’s already one available where you can do things like limit screen time, prevent app installs, and prevent opening selected apps.

When applying any restriction upon a kid, make sure to talk with them about it so they understand why you are doing what you’re doing. It is not because you think they can’t handle the freedom, but because with the freedom comes a massive responsibility to prevent harm upon both yourself and others. This is often more effective than any tech monitoring and restriction, IMHO.

If you’re asking about how to prevent them from accessing certain sites, there are some options, but they are easily circumventable.

Ultimately though, the internet is an unsafe place, where even places considered safe and mundane can turn out harmful. Open communication is key.

We already have some measurements in place like the CPS. One can also lose the rights of custody after certain convictions. This is all reactive, however, and in many cases CPS comes under fire for “not doing enough”.

This is all speculative on top of my head, and I expect a proper governmental implementation to be much more thought through and extensive than what I write here, but the gist of it I imagine is something like the following:

Before parenthood, one would need to take mandatory courses and a governmental theory test (like the test for driving) in order to be eligible to keep your child when it is born at a hospital. This is not meant to be particularly difficult, but to root out the worst, and to educate a bit through the courses.

All human births are to be registered, and when doing so, one can easily check the parents’ records for things like violent behavior, neglect, conspiracies, etc… This is where I assume most enforcements of this law. (A result of this would be even more children in children’s homes, which is another discussion as a direct result of this. (Which the government also has the power to do something about, like creating subsidiaries for foster parents.))

After the child is born, there should be a wellness checkup at something like the age of 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15, to ensure physical and mental health is good. Both the parents and the child have to answer a questionnaire separately, and if there’s reason for concern, queue CPS.

CPS is also underfunded in several countries already, from what I’ve heard around.

This is an example of where a death should never have been necessary to take action:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JBRHS5vErpg

Because that never goes well.

Could you refer me to some specific cases? I’m curious to learn. I have a feeling it’s most likely due to improper implementation, being either too narrow or too fast. This is a potentially big societal change, and needs time - years - for a proper adaptation.

This problem has become so big and deep rooted, that we need multiple approaches over a prolonged period to rectify the exposure and impressions kids (below 16, maybe even 18) are subject to.

First and foremost, education in every layer: Adults, teachers and parents need to not only be aware of what the kids are (potentially) exposed to online, but be educational about how to perceive it. Blocking is not effective enough long-term (check out the failure of COSA).

Secondly, it’s not the government’s responsibility to surveil kids online, it’s primarily the parents’ responsibility! If you as a parent are unaware of your kid being hateful and a bigot online, you’re part of the problem.

Thirdly, if we are to put any responsibility on the government, it is to mandate requirements for adults to become/remain parents. Just like we have a driver’s license to protect the public from accidents impacting innocent lives, we should have something that protects society from having unworthy parents raising assholes and potentially also ruining innocents’ lives (read suicide).

I’m tired of this, sorry for the rant. We need to step up. I’m painfully aware of what this 15 y/o girl has been exposed to, and I know of so much worse things easily available on the clear web, if not on social media.
Be the safety net your kid needs you to be, dear parents…

I don’t understand, what is YSK about this? This is US politics, and doesn’t provide any good content related to this community as far as I can tell.

An attacker could trick a user into clicking a malicious link inside a Markdown file opened in Notepad, causing the application to launch unverified protocols that load and execute remote files.

“launching unverified protocols” - does that mean the network fetching is done by the Notepad app, and Notepad doesn’t open the browser for this…? If so, bloody hell, Microsoft…

I’m not really into trends and such, but wasn’t emo a trendy thing in the 90s/early 2000s? Is it back again already? Also, 2022 statistics are understandably related to the covid shutdown - it proved in many ways that social life is very important for mental health.

And I tried to look up GrowSPACE, and found only more articles stating the same things, but none still with linked sources?

I’m saddened to see that the statistics show a growing trend, but I’m curious why the amount of attempts have increased so much, yet the deaths did not increase proportionally to the attempts? I hope that the reason is because suicide attempts are being more talked about and focused on than before, rather than there being an actual increase in attempts. Though it’s probably a bit of both?

Edit:
I can’t seem to find any direct links in the article to the sources it talks about?

History being rewritten is no small thing. These nuances are indeed something capable of swaying opinions of many, especially considering how many read Wikipedia compared to physical history books.

In the example of Kaja Kallas, one who’s not familiar with her origins might check out her Wikipedia page and find that she was born “as part of the Soviet Union”, and might judge/defame her as someone with an upbringing or values unfit for her political role.

Nevertheless, the information is accurate (that was the place and the state of the country when she was born). And if you click on Estonian SSR (currently live on Wikipedia), you will immediately see on the top of the page:

“… was an illegal administrative subunit (union republic) of the former Soviet Union, covering the occupied and annexed territory of Estonia in 1940–1941 and 1944–1991.”

So the accurate information is still present, though it indeed matters how it is presented.

I’m not denying the campaign of disinformation and history manipulation, but I think a huge part of the problem here is how people read and consume information; take one bite of what is presented and go straight to an extreme opinion. We have become so polarized it’s ridiculous, and it’s detrimental to civilized societies.

Unfortunately, considering the basic human psychology that world leaders are subject to, there is a need for a deterrent with greater power than the temptation. There is always a calculation of “is it worth it”, and it is up to us civilized to ensure the answer is “no” in situations like this. By what means we create this deterrence however, I fear it is always either way too little (just talk) or way too much (military force, aka. war).

We live in trying times…