Back to story
Perspective Shift

You read this story from where you sit.
Want to read it from somewhere else?

We'll re-present the same story as a thoughtful proponent of the child-safety frame would. Not to convince you. To let you actually meet the argument.

Choose a vantage
Retold from the other vantage
Steelman · slot B
Guardrails before more kids get hurt
A child-safety legislator would argue —
We are not banning calculators or tutors. We are saying that a product designed to simulate friendship, intimacy, and therapeutic dependency with a child — and which has demonstrably pushed sexually explicit content and self-harm encouragement at minors — should not be marketed to minors at all, and that adults using these systems should at least be confirmed adults. Every other regulated product that engages a child's psychology this intensely, from alcohol to gambling to tobacco, carries an age gate; pretending AI companions are different because they're typed instead of poured is a category error. A $100,000 penalty and a clear disclosure that the bot is not a human, not a therapist, and not a doctor is the bare minimum duty of care.

If this read like a fair rendering of the argument — even when you disagree — it's doing its job. Steelmen aren't aimed at persuading you; they're aimed at what the other side actually believes when they're thinking clearly.