In terms of slippery slopes, this argument is climbing atop one. Where does that end? Should we ban doctors from performing surgeries that would save someone's hearing? Should we ban protective gear that might diminish the size of the deaf community?
It's simply a horrible argument to suggest that you have to protect a disadvantaged community by making sure they don't shrink. There's much better ways to be respectful of the great human beings these people are.
Can I mention the irony that this seems a "bit" paranoid? "bit" because, yes, you do have some good examples of failures to call to, but still, consider how much good would have to be chucked to have avoided those by a general aversion to not record any data at all. You're fear that it will lead to poor outcomes didn't ask what's given up.. whether there might be good outcomes. A rational, bounded set of fears (not paranoid), would have to consider those possibilities too. When I do that I come to the belief that the responses to those fears live at a higher level.. being careful about how we store data, being careful about how we interpret data, being careful about how we communicate data. The answer is not being afraid to gather data.
Sure, you can imagine it, but you should be able to imagine better solutions too. Far easier to ask for a government ID, or better yet, have a third party, which is trusted, use a cross-check, so that the raw data is never shared, just a binary, yes/no to the age check.
If we only imagine the bad outcomes, we'll miss on many good ones. And part of those misses will be worse bad outcomes. For example, if you object to the creation of a third party that could validate your age, what you get is a direct ask for your ID, which is the current reality and far worse.
You cannot undo anything that's history, including not testing. If you missed a chance to get other tests or treatment early in life, you don't get the chance to fix that later either.
It would be easier to be cautious on penetrance, and reevaluate later, than to never collect the data and hope something changes. The number of these calls to limit our access to data are piling up, and they shouldn't be taken one at a time.
The second section is probably the most dense, I can see that. That said, there's a reason.. I'm trying to communicate an idea that has a lot of dependencies. If you know those already, all that cautiousness and unwinding is probably unnecessary.
Anyhow, the basic premise is that deployment of security fixes takes a long time. It doesn't have to, but it does, because basically, a lot of places never did what they should have.
I try to explain why without just screaming at the heavens at the stupidity, hoping to actually enlist the people who might be able to stop making that mistake. I know, tall order, but any progress is progress.
Other than that, it's just focusing on why this is more important today than last year.
What I'm clarifying there is, I don't just write a draft and say "make this better". I spend time editing and rewriting (everyone should, such that should be implied for any author, but since the question came up felt the need to clarify).
Anyhow, I'd be open to any real critique. Do you disagree with the premise? Do you despise the style?
I'd be more interested in the first than the second, since I write because of ideas, and that's just my path to communicate them, but go ahead either way.
I'm sorry, if your impression is that this is AI generated, but it wasn't. I do use some tools as part of my editing, drafting and iteration process, but my articles always start from my first draft and have a lot of additional personal interaction along the way.
It's simply a horrible argument to suggest that you have to protect a disadvantaged community by making sure they don't shrink. There's much better ways to be respectful of the great human beings these people are.