4 ms·

It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of on

It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of online communities that e.g. normalize and encourage eating disorders or suicide, for example. It's our duty to educate our children well enough that they'll eventually be able to make smart decisions themselves - but that takes time and guidance.

kick 7y ago
Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.
- woofcat 7y ago
  >You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
  - kick 7y ago
    This filter does not block sites encouraging self-harm. This filter blocks adult sites. My claim was that the filter only blocks things that are less harmful than what I listed. I don't think that's untrue, and stand by what I said. It is literally impossible to block all sites containing an idea via DNS filtering. It's substantially more plausible to block 'icky' sites. It's noted elsewhere in this thread that the filter doesn't block Facebook (which has many communities encouraging self-harm) nor reddit (which has countless communities that do so). The harms that the above poster cites (pro-ana & pro-suicide sites) are not and cannot be censored via use of a DNS filter.
    - woofcat 7y ago
      So you're saying since the solution isn't perfect, we should do away with it?
      - kick 7y ago
        The anti-solution isn't even attempting to be a solution. It's not that it isn't perfect. It's that it's not even resembling anything close to a solution: it's actively harmful to the goals that are apparently trying to be achieved.

kick 7y ago

Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.

woofcat 7y ago
>You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
- kick 7y ago
  This filter does not block sites encouraging self-harm. This filter blocks adult sites. My claim was that the filter only blocks things that are less harmful than what I listed. I don't think that's untrue, and stand by what I said. It is literally impossible to block all sites containing an idea via DNS filtering. It's substantially more plausible to block 'icky' sites. It's noted elsewhere in this thread that the filter doesn't block Facebook (which has many communities encouraging self-harm) nor reddit (which has countless communities that do so). The harms that the above poster cites (pro-ana & pro-suicide sites) are not and cannot be censored via use of a DNS filter.
  - woofcat 7y ago
    So you're saying since the solution isn't perfect, we should do away with it?
    - kick 7y ago
      The anti-solution isn't even attempting to be a solution. It's not that it isn't perfect. It's that it's not even resembling anything close to a solution: it's actively harmful to the goals that are apparently trying to be achieved.