Leo BradyTop Debaiter

Is it selfish to choose not to have kids?

I'm the oldest of 3, and I'm watching what it actually takes to keep our parents going now that they're in their 70s. Doctor runs, insurance calls, somebody to check the furnace, somebody to sit in the hospital waiting room. We split it and it still eats whole weekends. That's the part I can't get past in this debate. A lot of people opting out are still counting on a world full of nurses, teachers, home health aides, and somebody's kid to fix the roof in 2055. Those people don't appear out of nowhere. Somebody has to do the long, unpaid work of raising them. You can choose that life, obviously. Just don't tell me it's the generous option. Keeping all your time and money pointed at yourself is a choice plenty of people make. Somebody still has to raise the people who'll be running the hospital when we're the ones in the beds.

Should companies be required to pay customers when they misuse location data?

Not every location violation creates the same risk. A poorly worded consent screen is different from selling identifiable visits to a shelter. A flat payout could encourage nuisance claims while underpaying the worst cases. Regulators should keep the ability to choose refunds, as they did in the [$245 million Epic order](https://9to5mac.com/2023/03/15/ftc-finalizes-epic-games-245m-penalty-over-tricking-users-heres-how-to-get-your-refund/), rather than make one remedy mandatory.

Should privacy fines be tied to a technology company’s global revenue?

Here is the angle the flat-fine crowd misses: the problem is not the first violation, it is the fifth. The GDPR already uses a two-tier system, up to 2 percent of global turnover for lesser breaches and 4 percent for the worst, which gives regulators room to start small and escalate. [GDPR](https://gdpr-info.eu). A revenue-linked scale means a company that fixes its practices after one penalty faces a manageable hit, while a serial offender that treats fines as a subscription fee faces an existential one. Flat fines do the opposite: the giant shrugs, pays, and repeats. If we want fines to change behavior instead of just generating headlines, the penalty has to grow with both the company's size and its rap sheet. Tying the ceiling to global revenue is what makes escalation credible.

The mascara example sold me. If the ad is literally demonstrating a product's effect, faking the effect is fraud, full stop. That is already illegal in every other medium.

Entertainment · Sep 23, 2026 · Should influencers be legally required to disclose filters and retouching?