It is but the point is once you are OK with some invasive age verification laws, because they may simplify parenting, you get others imposed on you that might not be OK with you.
I am not. I don't label myself, but if I were forced to slap a label on myself it would be something like an anarcho communist.
It's not that I don't believe in regulations helping, is that I feel like this is plastering over a deeper issue, which is parents having children, but not having enough economic security to have the time and resources to devout to their parenting properly and so turning to the state for oppressive restrictions in favor of good parenting.
It's the reasons teens spend time on these apps that should be looked at by the state, not how to block them from doing so in other words.
> I like this post about how having a box to type an age into is unreasonable since we haven’t tried simply doing… global communism?
I like this post setting up a straw man when I am not talking about a box to type age into (existed since the 90s) but about you needing to photo ID to access your OS/your OS preventing you from doing this unless you photo ID.
I'm also not sure where you get any kind of global communism from but then I am not sure you know what that even means.
> I am not. I don't label myself, but if I were forced to slap a label on myself it would be something like an anarcho communist.
Good to not label yourself, but that is functionally equivalent, the "anarcho" part was the point, not communist or capitalist.
> It's not that I don't believe in regulations helping, is that I feel like this is plastering over a deeper issue, which is parents having children, but not having enough economic security to have the time and resources to devout to their parenting properly and so turning to the state for oppressive restrictions in favor of good parenting.
People have been saying stuff like that since time immemorial (or at least BC), and most eras since then. Simultaneously with other people saying the exact opposite, and calling for those very same laws.
Almost never does anyone in either group actually agree on specifics over vibes. Closest was probably the US having alcohol prohibition (but even then some of the supporters were expecting the ban only on liquor not beer) and similar sized nations setting obscenity and blasphemy laws.
> but that is functionally equivalent, the "anarcho" part was the point, not communist or capitalist.
I don't think they're functionally equivalent today. A libertarian today is most commonly understood as someone who, while not trusting state institutions, fundamentally trusts and embraces corporate power because of self-correcting market forces of competition keeping them in check, as they would say.
They also don't believe in 'handouts' (i.e. social safety net) and certainly not in a collective ownership of the means of production.
While I am skeptical of much of state power, I most certainly do believe in a generous social safety net, safety regulations as it relates to food, water, oxygen etc. just not things that approach totalitarianism, and I certainly do not believe 'competition' in the 'free market' will keep corporations behaving nicely.
Therefore I do not think libertarian would fit. May be the original left wing kind of libertarian. But that's not what is understood under that term today.
Therefore I am in favor of none.