Wonโt unfollow you, Iโll just disagree a bit. I think he should have made greater effort to resolve this. It seems like he barely made any, and sending the creepy porno writer to negotiate with them was a slap in the face.
I think he should consecrate their bishops, since, much like Lefebvre before, itโs becoming an existential matter for the order. The fact that Chinese bishops, or the whole German church for that matter, face no sanctions make the objection that the SSPX refuse to worship โthe one Council to rule them allโ ring hollow. The Synodal Church hates the old Catholic one and we now know where Leo stands.
Did we just assume he picked his name from Leo XIII? Perhaps he took it from Brother Leo, St. Francisโ little lamb.
@CatholicSat@lukei4655 Yet heโs never spoken to them. Iโm starting to wonder if someone else is making the decisions and heโs just window dressing.
BREAKING: Potential Tropical Cyclone One has been designated. Heavy rain and dangerous flooding are expected from the Texas coast into parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama through Thursday. Some areas could receive up to 12 inches of rain.
Iโm actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this.
The groomer problem is real but itโs also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home.
There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered.
What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand itโs so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business.
Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when heโs not.
This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure itโs not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy.
Thatโs how you know this law isnโt about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids.
Whatโs really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes.
Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer wonโt even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britainโs neighborhoods but heโs worried about online grooming?
No heโs not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.