3 ms·

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. It's all very well dis

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. It's all very well dismissing this, but I can't imagine being a parent and trying to moderate a childs access to "extreme" content (sexual or otherwise) in the modern world. On the off chance I manage to properly "secure" the home computer they'll be surrounded by friends with smartphones, laptops etc. In ye olden days the risks were of some parent letting children watch a 15 movie at a sleepover, or perhaps one kid getting a magazine and showing it about. The internet is never more than 3 clicks from the latest deathgif etc some of which can have a pretty strong influence on a person (let alone a child). Declaring everyone who sees things such as that as problematic to be fascist is probably not going to result in positive change.

bewo001 9y ago
In the olden days, the neighbor kid would bring the splatter movie VHS he 'lend' from his uncle. In the eighties there was a huge discussion (at least in Germany) on how to prevent children from viewing inappropriate video cassettes. And I don't see that the 17/18 year olds of today are all depraved and damaged because of all the Internet porn they had access to.
mattkevan 9y ago
You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. I don't object at all to people censoring their own feeds or deciding what is acceptable to themselves - I do it myself. Tools for this should be easy to use and widely available for those who want them. What I do object to, strongly, is a bunch of unaccountable people secretly deciding what we should and shouldn't have access to, especially on such slippery justifications as 'protecting the children' or 'preventing terrorism'.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  Unaccountable is a bit strong - given that this is being done by elected officials, but sure. This is one small but potentially landmark step on the way to complete control over the most powerful and complete source of free information possible. Sure it'd be great if parental controls really worked and were easy to set up. They're not, not even close. Heck - facebook will happily share beheadings for a couple hours until it gets to the front of a support queue somewhere. I, too, have no answers. But I do feel like demonizing the people who would like the government to resolve the issue for them (and the government for doing so) doesn't move the conversation forward. What is the price of free and uncensored access? Is there one day going to be a price we're unwilling to pay? I can't open the pirate bay dot com because the government doesn't want me stealing content. I don't think they're malicious or evil for that policy, I understand the logic. It even works in preventing some level of piracy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

bewo001 9y ago

In the olden days, the neighbor kid would bring the splatter movie VHS he 'lend' from his uncle. In the eighties there was a huge discussion (at least in Germany) on how to prevent children from viewing inappropriate video cassettes. And I don't see that the 17/18 year olds of today are all depraved and damaged because of all the Internet porn they had access to.

mattkevan 9y ago

You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. I don't object at all to people censoring their own feeds or deciding what is acceptable to themselves - I do it myself. Tools for this should be easy to use and widely available for those who want them. What I do object to, strongly, is a bunch of unaccountable people secretly deciding what we should and shouldn't have access to, especially on such slippery justifications as 'protecting the children' or 'preventing terrorism'.

Ntrails 9y ago
Unaccountable is a bit strong - given that this is being done by elected officials, but sure. This is one small but potentially landmark step on the way to complete control over the most powerful and complete source of free information possible. Sure it'd be great if parental controls really worked and were easy to set up. They're not, not even close. Heck - facebook will happily share beheadings for a couple hours until it gets to the front of a support queue somewhere. I, too, have no answers. But I do feel like demonizing the people who would like the government to resolve the issue for them (and the government for doing so) doesn't move the conversation forward. What is the price of free and uncensored access? Is there one day going to be a price we're unwilling to pay? I can't open the pirate bay dot com because the government doesn't want me stealing content. I don't think they're malicious or evil for that policy, I understand the logic. It even works in preventing some level of piracy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]