“In order to save the city, it became necessary to destroy it.'' The previous quote, which is probably false, is related to the battle for Ben Tre in Vietnam. That's what “limited government” conservatives think of when they promise small government to their flock through expanded government.
The latest example of conservatives and their situational beliefs concerns the Kids Online Safety Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at protecting children. Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn said the bill “requires social media platforms to prioritize the well-being of children by providing a safe environment by default.”
Blackburn claims with obvious pride that two-thirds of the U.S. Senate supports the bill, but this raises an obvious question: Are conservatives rightly in control of the government? Aren't you skeptical? If so, why should those outside the government feel safe when the majority in government aims to protect what they consider our “well-being”? Does Ronald Reagan's quip about the most terrifying words in the English language no longer apply as long as the people who claim to support us are Republicans?
Then came this “Kids Online Safety'' bill, which has a strange concept. The latter suggests using a computer (a laptop or a handheld in the form of a smartphone) in conjunction with the Internet. According to both critics, including many conservative critics like Jonathan Haidt, children are increasingly interacting with the Internet in isolated ways. They probably choose the latter over socializing with others. Hite claims that internet use is making children “anxious.”
Okay, but it would be very interesting if the stories about the alleged “Anxious Generation” were true. please think about it. In the old days, before the internet, it was the parents who felt anxious. They were especially concerned about whether their children were doing well outside the home, and that definitely had nothing to do with computers or smartphones.
Seriously, what would Gen Again, the fear for parents in the past was what their children would enter and see far from the confines of their homes, where it would be easy to call the police.
Taking this a step further and applying it to computers and smartphones, parents who often control the purse strings are now able to stay online, far from their parents' prying eyes, and in a far cry from the previous potential avenues for mischief. Activities can be regulated. Speaking of which, thanks to the internet and smartphones, parents can now know where their children are at all times. What's not to like about this advancement in technology, and more importantly, why “limited government” conservatives are trying to intervene with more government? Really why?
Some might say that since the Internet is limitless, perhaps benevolent governments must intervene to protect our precious children from malicious content. That in itself is interesting. It is thought that the Internet is where children see things they shouldn't see. No, it's not serious. playboy, penthouseand countless other obscene content, were available in abundance outside the home long before children chose to curl up inside and use their smartphones as a way to spend their free time.
It goes a long way to not only point out the pointlessness of the Kids Online Safety Act, but also comment on how strange it is that conservatives would support such a pointless bill. Just because Republicans pass laws promoting child safety doesn't mean big government suddenly acquires admirable qualities. Conservatives say something as important as the latter should be left to parents. Republicans would be wise to stick to their past statements.
