On point lmao

True, they should learn about suggested content bubble

Thanks

Unrealistic

Most of my knowledge including the field I study now, is due to having internet as a kid and its power to learn by yourself

You don’t teach without experience

This one https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/netsmartz/itc/downloadable/Peer Education Kit.pdf ?

Looks good, could be used in classrooms (I doubt they will here though since education is so much out of touch with reality)

Thank you !

Now I should add

• Learn to recognize malwares
• Learn to block disturbing people and to ignore haters

Can you explain what you meant by netiquette and do noy pay later?

Yeah really annoying. Was able to remove account after being forced to log in

I do agree with you point and opinion, but that “logical proof” is one of the worst I’ve read.

The “Nothing to Hide” argument could be restated that way:

Axioms: A1: Surveillance reveals hidden things A2: If I have something to hide, I would be concerned if it’s revealed

Propositions p: I have something to hide q: I should be concerned about surveillance

We deduce from the axioms that p => q : “if I have something to hide I must be concerned about surveillance”.

The logical fallacy of the nothing to hide is to deduce !p => !q : “If I have nothing to hide I should not fear surveillance”. Which is a case of Denying the antecedent fallacy.

Another fallacy of the argument is that they suppose !p is true, which is a debunked fact.

What was wrong with your proof was that you used another human to disprove a fact about the first one. The I may not be switchable because the other human may not have the same axioms. Moreover, you statement was about “should” but if someone doesn’t do something they only should do, it’s not a contradiction