Not a great argument: why shouldn't they track down a real victim to confirm actual abuse took place? Seems like an argument for lazy police work & a surrender to authority.

I don't see this argument come up with fictitious depictions of homicide & other crimes.

Having a firm conviction about realizing fundamental rights & liberties to their logical limits isn't suspicious. Anything less is cowardice. The decision was sound.

All answered by *drum roll* reading the article.

As stated in the article

Lowering the toilet lid has been historically believed to help prevent the dispersion of large droplets, and some earlier studies recommended discouraging the use of lidless toilets. However, a January 2024 study showed that there is no statistically significant difference between having the toilet lid raised or lowered during flushes, instead recommending vigorous brushing of the toilet bowl and associated surfaces with disinfectant as a more effective method to mitigate the impact of toilet plumes.

OP confirmed for not reading their own article.

Feat of mental gymnastics. They consider themselves a looser sense of democratic that isn't a liberal multiparty democracy with competitive elections. With a twist of idealization, they rationalize that their dictatorship of the proletariat headed by a one-party leader serves the people: their bottom-up hierarchy of councils culminates to their single-party leadership whose final decisions (that close discussion and demand absolute obedience) somehow reflect the collective/people. They might call it democratic centralism or dress it up in more elaborate pseudotheoretical jargon.

• Age Assurance: We work hard to find and remove underage accounts from our apps and, as part of our agreement, we’re investing in even stronger technology to proactively catch accounts that may belong to under-13s. We’re also strengthening the technology we use to identify accounts that may be between the ages of 13 and 17, so we can ensure those accounts are placed in experiences designed for teens, even if they give us an adult birthday. However, to ensure teens are consistently protected across the many apps they use, app stores must provide developers with verified age information. This will allow platforms to put age-appropriate protections in place for as many teens as possible. That’s why we’ll continue to advocate for legislation that empowers parents by requiring app stores to verify age and obtain parental approval before a teen downloads an app.
• Age-appropriate content restrictions: We will maintain our current content standards so that, by default, teens are placed into 13+ content settings, inspired by movie ratings criteria and parent feedback. We will also continue to prevent teens from following or interacting with accounts we consider age-inappropriate. We will work to continually improve these systems to ensure age-appropriate content experiences for teens.

So, more powergrabs by the state to force these invasive anti-features down everyone's throats.

I really despise the suckers falling for thin pretexts of "child safety" & "mental health" as excuses to assault our liberties and the free flow of information with measures enabling authorities to more closely track & control our activities on information systems of all things.

The self-control issues you wrote about seem a you problem. I don't imagine any agreement out there fixing that unless we assume we can't treat you like an autonomous adult making grown-ass choices when you know what you're getting into, so an authority must step in to stop you from yourself. Surrendering that to authority frankly goes against the social contract that respects individuals' basic liberties.

Is the answer to this question no?