This doesn't happen without clear signs beforehand or if you don't interact with your child at all. Competent parents pay attention to their children and these signs and provide a safe space for them to talk about these types of things. Negligent parents who don't are dangerous.

> Note that, unless you're with your children 24/7/365, you can't fully regulate your children's' behavior.

Maybe not, but parents are still fully responsible for their children's actions. I can't fully regulate my dog's behavior but I'm the one getting sued if he escapes and bites someone.

> Because there is so much pressure on young people to be present on these apps.

Until they pay for their own housing and food, the only pressure that should matter is what I as a parent put on them. Other children creating this pressure is a result of their parents failure to parent, and they also should be held accountable.

> Civilized society frequently regulates products and services that are known to be harmful to society and a threat to human health.

Regulate the product then, not the adult person. Products can be regulated via accurate labeling. Then, it is on you as a responsible to read the labeling and behave accordingly and keep your kids away from them. This works for dangerous chemical products like cleaning solutions. The products I buy in the supermarket that are restricted to 18+ don't require my ID to be stored in a database, I simply show the clerk. Even then it would be far better if 18s and under just weren't allowed in stores. Labeling works best for 18+ content. If you can't handle it, keep your kids away from phones and computers.

You can certainly bake in fairness, congestion control, etc. in the protocol level, but protocols require 2 participants to follow rules/spec to work, and if one side doesn't follow the rules/spec, at the very least some bandwidth will be consumed.

The only way to absolutely prevent DoS/DDoS is to have more bandwidth than all possible simultaneous attackers, or limit physical access to the medium. Cellular networks, for example, keep direct physical access to its medium under tight lock and key through proprietary, non-open-source baseband firmware.

PC not really required. 512MB of RAM and enough Linux to get Python will run Reticulum, on Raspberry Pi's for example.

None whatsoever. Parents that allow/enable their children to access such things when they are clearly in adults-only conduits should be held responsible. Attempting to preemptively eliminate everything addictive from life for adults does not reduce the amount of addiction and only enables profiteering via moral panics. At some point you have to MYOB.

> It's very strange that you can be aware of the fact that Facebook et. al. have been trying to get kids addicted and then pretend that there's no "specific action" to entice them.

> So you're okay with a model where private companies intentionally get your kids addicted to digital crack and can unilaterally sell all their personal information, advertise all sorts of harmful products and services to them, let predators target and contact them, etc.?

The model isn't affecting me because I'm not a bad parent who is letting my kids get on platforms without watching them. If we're going to allow basically any rights/norms/freedoms to be bypassed in the name of "think of the children," let's nip the problem in the bud and permanently separate them from bad parents who are committing negligence.

Whatever specific action(s) Facebook did to entice children using addictive techniques, they should stop doing that and be held accountable. But, if a parent is suing Facebook because of this situation, I find it hard to believe they didn't know Facebook was addictive for their child beforehand. Did the parent remove Facebook from their child's phone the moment they recognized harm? This doesn't place Facebook in the right. But the parents shouldn't get a free pass either if they were in any way part of it.

The selling of personal data and advertising ruins things for both kids and adults, and sensible regulation there would be great. Regarding predators, parents can and should restrict their children from using platforms that aren't trustable, like Facebook.

However, if my platform says on the outside that it's for 18+, identifies itself as such using machine-readable signals, and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service, it's your failure to parent if they access it, and you should shoulder most or all the liability for it.

The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? This exists currently to some extent, it can get much worse.

A government body may review a service and determine it is addictive and radicalizing. This is fine, and helpful. Even requiring the service to display a warning is OK. Then, parents who ignore the clear warning and repeatedly fail to control their children from accessing it should lose parental rights.

The long term effect may be that credit card companies stop supporting remote transactions that don't use biometrics+attestation or the physical card.

"The original retail price of the computer with 4 KiB of RAM was US$1,298 (equivalent to $6,900 in 2025)[21] and with the maximum 48 KiB of RAM, it was US$2,638 (equivalent to $14,020 in 2025)"

Over its course the Internet and Web took over just about all communications, including culturally anchoring things like TV, radio, and newspapers. The takeover accelerated with the rise of broadband, Facebook and smartphones, and is nearly complete. The whole world's here.

This means people who want to advertise, influence, or control large numbers of people also followed.

On my Instagram, sometimes I'll see local news, and the fake accounts are very obvious, they all post practically the same thing and all of their profiles follow similar patterns. Maybe this will go away when everything becomes ID-gated.

The optimism of 2005 was pre-smartphone, pre-social-media, and well before everyone's grandparents were constantly regurgitating political posts on Facebook.

> Do people even want better communities

Most people do not want to put in the work to make them, but they'll certainly join and passively let people run themselves into the ground entertaining them for free. It doesn't make sense to do all the work for lazy people unless you're just wanting to broadcast to the largest audience possible.

But honestly, I really liked whatever you call this type of trail. Not sure this was the intent, but I used the trail to trace under the lines as I reading them which helped me pay attention to the text a bit better.

100% agree with you on messing with selection and copy/paste though.

All the gory details you could ever want: http://kevtris.org/mappers/famicombox/index1.html

I'm not too familiar with Lisp (although I did play a lot with LOGO as a kid), and I suspect if I knew Lisp this would be better. Is this eventually going to be Emacs inside out? Maybe I'll take a deep dive into Lisp sometime as it's ideas are important to the history of computing.

Anyway, keep going.

- Clocks started becoming a big deal when factory/shift work started being a thing in the early days of the Industrial Revolution.

Putting prompts in an LLM and saying you "created" the image or text thereof is fraud.

These days, if you have an Android phone and/or are part of the Google ecosystem, Google services overall are very useful for things like "find restaurant near me", etc or finding places to buy stuff, etc. But for intellectual pursuits or the idea "the portal to the open web", Google Search has been dead a long time.

It's been very rare for many years now that I enter anything into Google search that isn't generic information that I can find by searching Wikipedia or even using ChatGPT and I'll typically use those directly instead.

So it's rational and expected for publishers to do this. Google Search provides fewer and fewer benefits over time.

I don't remember seeing this on Commodore 64 too much. Most type-in hybrid BASIC-machine language programs would have numerous DATA statements with opcodes and a loop to READ and POKE them (typically in the tape buffer area somewhere in the fist 2K of RAM or in the 4K area at 49152/$C000).

Commodore 64 BASIC's LOAD"WHATEVER",8 command would load a file of any size in the BASIC text area without validation or checking it for any type of format. So much commercial C64 software often had a one line "10 SYS2063" (or similar) stub that would simply jump into the actual code which was tacked on to that BASIC stub. But the LIST command wouldn't display anything after the stub - I guess the "next line" bytes were set to $0000 to indicate end of program.

Not to say it couldn't happen - but it wouldn't be a backdoor thing, it'd be very up front. All that's needed is for ISPs to create/join some SSO-like standard that lets you use ISP credentials as smart TV credentials (e.g. Your Xfinity account is automatically your Vizio account, sign on with your Xfinity account to get free streaming deals now).

I feel like if TVs start doing that, they'll display a network ID and signal bars at the top of the screen like cell phones do, so the TV maker doesn't get blamed for ISP problems.