A token attempt is not enough.

> This policy is not open to discussion, any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed, and any attempt to bypass this policy will result in a ban from the project.

It sounds serious and strict, but it applies to content that's 'clearly labelled as LLM-generated'. So what about content that isn't as clear? I don't know what to make of it.

My guess is that the serious tone is to avoid any possible legal issues that may arise from the inadvertent inclusion of AI-generated code. But the general motivation might be to avoid wasting the maintainers' time on reviewing confusing and sloppy submissions that are made using the lazy use of AI (as opposed finely guided and well reviewed AI code).

> Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that.

I'm also extremely concerned about what social media is doing to children's brains and how that manifests in their adulthood. I'm also concerned about how they affect adult brains, because I see it negatively affecting the decisions of even seniors.

But it's not "as simple as that". These sorts of solutions have serious consequences on civil liberty, privacy, security, affordability of general purpose computing, fair-use access to uaeful information, restrictions on state-sponsored information control, etc. This isn't a black-and-white problem.

> it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up".

Just as the problem is not black-and-white, the solution isn't either. There are a lot of steps to try before that. One is to try an awareness campaign among kids about the dangers of social media. It's a bit arrogant to believe that kids don't care about their own safety. Another is to assist parents with supervision and parental controls. Instead, they just jumped directly to the nuclear option. This kind of rhetorical framing of the opposition hides the likely nefarious intent behind such despotic measures.

> A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something.

You paint both parents and politicians as naïve individuals. There are plenty of parents who can see the problem, since they're Gen X and millenials who grew up observing the change. Meanwhile, assumption of incompetence among politicians is defeated by the fact that much public debate about it is missing here. And the fact that multiple states are coming up with similar bills, indicates the influence of lobbyists. Besides, the US politicians are not exactly known for defending the citizen's rights against corporate interests. They deserve a heavy dose of skepticism and criticism, not the benefit of doubt.

Automated access control is even worse. Kids explore technology a lot more than their parents do. They will find a work around and share it among their peers. The only real solution is to make them aware of the dangers and hope that it works when combined with parental attention.

That's a disingenuous false equivalence comparison. Checking ID at a store comes with no extra burden. Not so for computing devices. You're talking about everything from fully locking down the boot loader to adding age verification interface on most of the applications. Why do you think people are so worried only about the latter?

Another difference is that internet access has potential advantages for children. There are ways in which they can derive immense value from it. On the contrary, there is no justifiable reason why a child should be allowed to drink.

Please don't rationalize such draconian measures and help them claim legitimacy.