It's software. Apple can just offer to help them reset their phones to get the malware off. Apple doesn't have to do any more than that under their warranty obligations. They're not going to lose millions of dollars because of idiots who have that happen to them.

At some point you have to make users responsible for their own actions. Apple can put warnings and confirmation dialogs up on the toggle that allows sideloading and force the user to confirm that they're opening their phone up to possible danger. If people still sideload malware after that warning, it's on them.

An OS that regularly experiences security vulnerabilities, will most certainly continue to have new vulnerabilities discovered, and will no longer receive security updates is in fact insecure.

I don't know where "here" is but in the United States, the government may implement "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions on expressions of speech. You don't have a free speech right to march up and down a residential street at 3AM with a bullhorn and I would argue that you don't have a right to make loud disruptive telephone calls in public either.

The problem is that it's resulted in many unwarranted and unfounded accusations made. Careers have been upended because of the unfounded claims towards Chinese nationals.

America likes to gloat about how we're better than everyone else and that we have all this due process and equal justice for all but this has shown it to be a farce.

I want to make it clear that you and others are using weasel language like "maybe", "we don't really know", and etc. to justify barriers to freedom of speech and anonymity and have not considered lesser impactful means of achieving harm reduction (and have totally ignored probable harms that such laws could cause) before pulling out this big hammer.

But are social ills of social media "addiction" the same as someone who is chronically drunk or a chain smoker? If I "drink" social media every day 10x a day for several years and quit, do I have permanent damage? Probably not.

The comparison isn't there. It seems to me the solution is educating parents and letting parents exercise their discretion on the use of social media in their household.

Maybe parents should be expected do their job and we shouldn't collectively punish millions of youth.

Millions of people do it everyday. Maybe you can gaslight Aussies into accepting a "papers please" Great Firewall but you won't do it to the rest of us.

3. Let parents actually you know, parent their children. The entirety of Australia's underage are not collectively wards of the state, at least I hope that's not what people think.

You should enter the Olympics with all the stretching and contorting that you are doing comparing participating in an online discussion with drinking alcohol and driving a car.

Yeah. Whatever wrongs Google may or may not be guilty of, I see no scenario (outside of some individual or non-profit with purely noble intentions putting up the $20B) where Chrome doesn't become a worse product in terms of privacy and security.

I'm open to argument but it seems that the cure here is worse than the disease they're trying to remove.

LinkedIn isn't an anonymous forum. Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's helping your argument.

But are those digital IDs required to post on Reddit or YouTube? Missing the point here.

But what if they want to participate in a discussion? They'll be getting a VPN.

I was participating (as in, participating in chat rooms and forums) in BBSes and early online services like AOL and Prodigy when I was like 9 or 10. I can't imagine these kids will avoid the yearning of that kind of socialization. They WILL get online. The smarter kids will figure it out the soonest and teach the others how.

Cutting out the free coffee at any company is a sure sign that they are circling the drain. Coffee is really cheap and it's basically an expected thing at any company - taking it out is a sign of managerial shortsightedness and a desperate attempt to save not that much money to impress your shareholders. Is this what you really want to convey to everyone?

It's also a legal way to boost productivity of employees. That may be harder to quantify but take away coffee from a regular drinker and see what happens and it's obvious that those effects will trickle down to the work product in the office.