3 ms·

Fair points. Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ? Unfortunately

Fair points. Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ? Unfortunately, I believe it probably would help many parents as there are still a vast amount of people who are unaware of what the internet offers, even though their children already see it. You could suggest educating parents, but then many don't care. It's certainly been interesting seeing the differing viewpoints on this discussion.

darklajid 10y ago
I think any law is bound to be wrong in too many cases: If you lower the bar to 16 I'll certainly find a 17 year old that isn't ~stable~ enough for some content and the problem persists: Parents, individuals, have to protect their kids based on intimate knowledge about the persons, on a case to case basis. About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists. But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter. Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child. I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".

darklajid 10y ago

I think any law is bound to be wrong in too many cases: If you lower the bar to 16 I'll certainly find a 17 year old that isn't ~stable~ enough for some content and the problem persists: Parents, individuals, have to protect their kids based on intimate knowledge about the persons, on a case to case basis. About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists. But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter. Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child. I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".