Imagine this turns out to be actually posted by an AI. Scary much now? :D

You are essentially paraphrasing my own post while simultaneously calling me abjectly clueless.

So which is it? Did you click the wrong 'reply' link?

I think you are both right in a way. If the DV victim is not financially tied to the abuser, then it should be a no brainer, get a new SIM card at the closest point of sale, prepaid if need be, and voilà. But on the other hand, it's not hard to understand how and why this financial tie oftentimes comes along with the abuse situation.

That being said, I'm a bit intrigued as to why it is necessary to rule by legislation on that topic, what about a voluntary from the industry? It seems a win-win situation, that would cost them close to nothing and very good for PR. Either US carriers are more evil that I thought, or some politicians need to score points on this one.

The problem that I see regarding your argument is that just a few lines below, it reads the following: "The Home Office adds that under one option for legislation, laws could still criminalize people who did not suspect the technology would be used for serious crime, simply because the technology is so "closely associated with serious crime."

I wanted to mod this up but my finger literally slipped on the trackpad and as a result it was modded down as redundant (facepalm). This comment seems to be the only way to undo it ("If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?"). So here we are. Sorry about the noise.

Anyone cares to write a stub for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wrongthink already?

Yes sir. Except for Dogecoin.

I know you were replying to Ol Olsoc, but I for one totally missed the sarcasm of JBMcB although it seems quite obvious after your comment. So thanks for pointing it out. Now I don't know if I should take personal responsibility for that... or blame it on some other group. As a right-wing bigot, I guess the former? (insert some GIF here)

Agreed. And thanks for transcending your political side (based on you sig) and looking for actual solutions with the other political side.

Now will you maybe also concede that my solution, although not ideal, would nevertheless be an incremental, easier-to-deploy step towards the right direction?

Yes, it's even better from a health perspective, although... I'd say the specific health problem of sodas is tooth decay / erosion. Other health problems like diabetes and obesity are not specific to sodas or HFCS in particular. It's a diet imbalance problem, and solid data show that it is inversely proportional to education level and mean income. These are two very good hints toward a more general, desirable goal.

There are always several possible approaches to solving a problem. Taking away personal (or corporate) freedoms isn't a good way to go IMHO. I'm not implying that this is what you meant with your comment, but it summarizes most of my argument against the post-modernist, moralist turn taken by left-wing politics. Personal responsibility is becoming more and more underrated nowadays.

THIS. Now I wish I hadn't commented on TFA previously, so I could spend my last mod point upvoting THIS.

Apparently the Pfand system is not a thing outside Germany, and it's a shame (see my comment just above yours).

I guess some people are just too busy virtue signaling to spend some time figuring out working solutions and take action. Sad :-(

I guess it's a cultural thing, because where I live it's being enforced and no one sees this as harassment.

Also, how does the blame shifting towards the corporations help in any way? Do you expect corporation to act morally? It's a system, not a person.

And finally, whoever downvoted my comment without replying, i.e. without bringing any solution on the table, maybe you are part of the problem too?

I personally don't see the point of buying bottled, flat, non-mineral water in areas where tap water is a viable alternative. But it's far from being universally the case. The shaming tactics that you are putting forward have some merits, but they also have their limits. What we need are real solutions to a real problem, not just basic politics, see my comment a few rows above yours.

This is nice and full of good intentions, and there's no denying that the largest producers of plastic are just... that. Now what? What is the purpose of this public shaming? Do you want to do left-wing politics 101 (rich corporations and capitalism bad), or are you genuinely looking for solutions here? I will not even comment on the editorial political side of The Guardian, let's try to get past everyone's political bias, including mine.

What about shaming those who litter their environment with all this plastic waste? It would be just as useless.

I live in a country where the system just works, with 82% of PET bottles being recycled, and the vast majority of the reste goes to (incinerated) waste. Now I totally recognize my first world privilege here, don't get triggered here!

What can be done in other countries, where the recycling culture is not there yet, and the funds required to incentivize it are lacking? In Germany, at least a few years ago (but I think it's still currently applied), there is that Pfand (deposit fee) system where every bottle is taxed like 0.50€, and you have to bring the bottles back to the shop for recycling to collect the deposit fee back. I find this so clever. Rich and careless people who litter will leave their bottle behind, but less fortunate people are incentivized to collect them, bring them back to the shop and collect the fees back. As far as I've seen for myself, it just works, and I can't find many reasons not to spread this system to more countries, even outside the first world.

Shouldn't such solutions be the focus of these NGOs? Or is my right-wing political bias making me blind somehow? I'm quite willing to discuss this further.