Curtailing imports so much is a smart soft power move in not only does it ingratiate countries that would suffer most from the price spike but it could soften the resolve of Taiwan in showing that one of the largest penalties that would result from the invasion isn't nearly as punishing which in turn makes Taiwan's porcupine strategy less viable.

Along with US own goals like the thoroughly bungled and unplanned invasion, tariffs, corruption (both business crimes and more moral crimes like pedophilia or disregard for following legal process) it's made most of the west rate China above USA in favourability [latest Pew research poll].

In the unlikely event excess ambulance drivers are needed we'll temporarily hire them on an ad hoc basis at double the normal rate. They will obviously happily jump on this opportunity, working less than 5% of the year at double pay is much better for just those hours than being paid 60% of what you'd get as an ambulance driver in another career all year round and actually being able to afford your mortgage.

I suppose you could also argue other categories based on higher or lower ages and who gave themselves lower chances of ever catching covid could technically also fall into that group. You could also argue moral reasons not to get the vaccine but I'd say in any situation where you still expected to get healthcare that detracted from the healthcare of others (i.e when the hospitals were at capacity and your treatment could kill another) would be morally bankrupt.

There's obvious other drawbacks to this but it technically preserves privacy while still allowing revocation. The problem then occurs that once the system is in place it's easy to change. A recent and obvious example is that for years in the US undocumented immigrants paid taxes under the understanding that the tax department would not furnish that information to the arm of the government detailed with immigration enforcement, this policy recently changed with no equivalent law change and there is no recourse for those most disadvantaged by that change. Unrelated to the point at hand; going forward undocumented people are now encouraged to not pay taxes and that lawlessness is also encouraged in businesses that want to take advantage of that labour.

You just listed multiple places where you could be applying targeted restrictions to get the effect you espouse but instead are advocating for tracking on any art or conversations that could be deemed offensive to the most reactionary busy body.

The worst part is this age gating won't actually work, 18 year olds know 17 year olds know 16 year olds... No age verification is going to stop kids accessing whatever most offends your sensibilities, the point of being a good parent is being involved enough in a kids life that you can notice and stop excesses in bad behaviour early and encourage doing positive actions and forming good habits constantly because you and they can't succeed all the time, but you don't need to.

Arguing for these restrictions is the same logic that arguing that burkas should be mandatory because clearly if woman don't appear attractive there would be less sexual crime against woman rather than putting the impetus on the ones committing the crime. You may be right in that it occasionally achieves the goal but it's a horrendous way to do it and you make the world a worse place for those you're claiming you want to help.

Also "What happens when your idea of safety doesn’t align with the platform holder?" You seem to be arguing against yourself as you're saying that individual's preferences don't align with other groups but want to align standards based on distinct age groups mandated by the government.

The malicious belief would be that it's to ensure that the system can't be easily reactivated and that a non-profit couldn't offer to take over the running costs, there's also the possible "benefit" of redirecting funding that has already been allocated for marine science that would be harder to not dispense rather than arguably use it for this.

For instance if there was a homeless person on my street and I figured that giving them $500 would have good odds of having them OD and no longer being on my street... what looks like a charitable act very much isn't. So while it would contribute to a charitable persona it wouldn't reflect personality.

It's also worth remembering that in a lot of places with low density it isn't appealing for competitors to build out to, so there's a lot of markets where it's a no brainer to switch from the local monopoly to starlink because the price was already inflated and it was worse service.