The Crowhill Journal

A new report on how the UK handled Covid points out some big mistakes and missteps, which is, of course, impossible on its face, because everybody else in the world did a great job and it was Trump and “anti-science” Americans who messed things up.

(See Dominic Cummings was right’: where government went wrong on Covid handling)

You probably heard that Southwest had to cancel a lot of flights over the weekend, and that others were delayed. (Mrs. Crowhill got caught up in the delays last night.)

Southwest blamed the troubles on air-traffic control issues and bad weather, but that explanation is being greeted with a lot of skepticism. Other airlines did not have significant problems, and the FAA disputes Southwest’s claim.

Some people are blaming Southwest’s vaccine mandate. People are walking off the job, coming in late, etc., in protest.

I don’t know how this will shake out, but it’s worth asking why Southwest would lie about it. (Assuming, as it seems likely, that they did.)

It’s also worth asking if vaccine mandates are doing more harm than good. It’s starting to look as if vaccine mandates are going to cause worker shortages in key sectors of the economy, and will harm the operation of basic infrastructure.

The pro-mandate people might be tempted to argue that this kind of pressure will finally get the holdouts to comply. Some people certainly will. Most people can’t afford to lose their jobs.

But is anybody counting the cost? Is anyone looking at this realistically?

Let’s say this works the way Joe Biden allegedly wants it to work, and the mandates force people into compliance. Even the most rosy picture would have to admit it won’t be an easy thing. A lot of careers will be ruined along the way. It will harm an already weak economy. Some companies will be destroyed. It will leave a lot of people very angry, discontent and distrustful. Many will want to punch back in some way.

Is it all worth it?

Gee. Maybe the “you need to get the vaccine even if you’ve had Covid” routine is about money and not science. Who could believe such a thing?

Undercover Video: Pfizer Scientists Say Natural Immunity Is Superior and Big Pharma Is Suppressing Info for Money

Blockbuster Report: UK Sport Finds Trans Athletes Should Not Compete Against Women, Testosterone Suppression ‘Does Not Negate’ Physical Advantage

Somebody somewhere on this planet still has a brain.

The internet was built on anonymity. A client computer makes a request to a server, but the server doesn’t know who is operating that client computer. It knows a few things about the client — its IP address, and a few other things — but it doesn’t know if the user is an adult, a man, a woman, a child, a routing device of some kind, or a bot.

Servers can be set up to require credentials from the client, but the basic http structure is built on anonymity.

Marketers have been trying to get around that for years, using various techniques to identify the person behind the client computer. Browser fingerprinting and other things can be used to narrow things down, but it’s still essentially anonymous.

Is that a good thing?

I don’t think so. It’s appropriate to have restrictions on access to some content. In the real world, we don’t allow children to even enter certain venues, much less purchase the things available there. But the internet is wide open. Kids can “enter” all sorts of inappropriate places by simply clicking the “I’m over 18” button, or by entering a phony birthdate.

We wouldn’t permit that at the beer sales counter, or when a kid wants to buy pornography at the 7-11. Why do we permit it on porn sites?

And porn isn’t the only problem. One takeaway from yesterday’s hearings on Facebook is that research has shown that many social media sites are harmful to children. Facebook knew this, and they hid it. It’s been called Facebook’s “Big Tobacco moment.”

In the real world, we don’t want somebody monitoring everywhere we go and everything we do — although we’re getting close to that with facial recognition and the phones we carry around all the time. And I understand people’s interest in protecting their privacy. I’m not suggesting everyone has to register to access the internet.

This isn’t a binary thing — i.e., either you’re anonymous or you have to disclose your identity. We don’t want the Stasi going around saying, “Papers, please!”

I’m sure there’s a way for an adult to identify as an adult without having to give Big Tech, or the FBI, or whoever, a record of everything he does online.

That’s what we need — some sort of gatekeeper technology to identify adults and children on the internet.

Someone will object that there will always be ways around it. Sure. And kids use phony driver’s licenses to buy beer. That’s not an excuse not to try. But more importantly, having such a regime in place sends a cultural message that we still have standards, and that children need to be protected against some things.