Not a parent.
Of course it will help in that case. It's literally what it's there for. Also, the age where you can get away with leashing your kids is also the age where they aren't forming a ton of memories or where they have no social context to be embarrassed. They may be embarrassed when they're older, but that's just life.
Stop inflicting your feelings into random children.
I am willing to not be angry anymore. I'll be civil if I see you in public. But I am not willing to have a relationship anymore because while I hold no ill will, I also am unwilling to risk it happening again.
...Where do you normally pee that's, if not peaceful, at least alone?!
I was you. I installed Mint and the only issue I had was with a hard drive that was being shared by both systems (dual booting) that had all my games on it. It was a symlink issue.
Bite the bullet. The startup time alone is worth it.
Yes, well our representatives that aren't Republican should clearly do nothing then. That will definitely help. Definitely better than the correct thing their role calls for in this situation.
But let's do it anyway. If anything, it ties up a shitty Congress for a little bit.
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let's not open that can of worms).
I'll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we're splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they've done, but we live in an oligarchy so that's not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that's easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn't good. It shouldn't get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we're stuck with bad and worse solutions.
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let's not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It's a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it's kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying "stabbing people is bad, now go to time out" or "don't drink raw milk, you'll get sick". So yeah, I'm OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
See the trick is this: does "mentally fit" apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we'll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn't). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn't opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
Calling bad faith. The Rogan-stans tend to hide behind "he let's anyone on his show regardless of his feelings", while failing to acknowledge that he's platforming some heinously evil and/or stupid people (apparently Andrew fucking Tate is lined up to be on there soon) and just signs off on whatever crazy they spout (looks at Jordan Peterson). He's abdicated all responsibility for giving some awful people a platform and good PR.
It's not about disagreement, it's about responsibility for who uses your platform. If he grilled them like an investigative journalist or meaningfully debated them in any way, we could talk. But this fucker would have Andrew Wakefield on and just be like "oh yeah, vaccines are evil".
We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can't meaningfully influence sociopathic corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a bunch of shitty options.
Adding on to the Pope bit. The Pope snubbed Vance, who is Catholic, initially and sent a bishop to go lecture him on compassion instead of going himself. Vance eventually got a face to face where, and I'm fuzzy on this part, he also lectured him on compassion alongside a photo op. Then died the next day