3 ms·

>Preventing people’s access to something because of the potential downsides to it? We're not talking about adults, we're talking about children. Yes, at some p

>Preventing people’s access to something because of the potential downsides to it? We're not talking about adults, we're talking about children. Yes, at some point they need to be exposed to the internet because the internet is a fact of life. I'm just not sold that any child (say, under the age of 14) who doesn't have access to the internet would somehow be crippled socially, culturally or academically. I have yet to see any study that suggests limiting access to the internet for children, or even no access internet is greatly detrimental. Contrast this with the FACT that there is a mental health crisis happening right now due social media use, and that there is no effective way to segrate internet from social media. So what is the argument here? What if there is no safe-level of social media use for children? By the way it is not uncommon to see children of tech-savvy parents, who may work in the industry, outright banning or tightly controlling internet access to their children.

pjc50 6y ago
This last year, a large part of UK teaching to children of all ages has been entirely online. No internet == no teaching.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  If only someone had invented a way to partition and limit access between networks...
  - curtainsforus 6y ago
    That kids definitely won't be desperate to work around and overcome. But I'm sort-of in favor, to encourage technical skills. Set up society so kids have to learn pentesting to see boobs, and seven proxies to not get found out and told off by the local morality commisar. Instant generational competence upgrade.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  That needs to be qualified ... greatly. 1) There is such a thing as homeschool. 2) Schools are closed because of government mandated lockdowns. Not every region or nation decided to close their schools. In fact, most didn't. We're not even sure if that level of lockdown was good policy. Certainly there are credible epidemiologists who vehemently disagree with either lockdows or school closures. 3) The level of learning by remote instruction ... the data isn't out yet, but it isn't looking great. Maybe it's better than nothing but maybe not by much. 4) This is a generational pandemic that came suddenly and required big government bureaucracies to turn on a dime, and the internet to facilitate remote work was the most natural choice. But what are you saying, had this happened in 1992, no learning would be done? Or as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" and we would find alternatives. We educated children just fine before the internet. In fact I suspect we would come up with something better than zoom classes. 5) But OK. Let's give the internet points for assisting with this pandemic. Let's draft laws that in the event of global pandemics you leverage the internet for remote learning. What is your argument for post-pandemic world? But overall I vehemently disagree with the notion that: "No internet == no teaching."

pjc50 6y ago

This last year, a large part of UK teaching to children of all ages has been entirely online. No internet == no teaching.

ethbr0 6y ago
If only someone had invented a way to partition and limit access between networks...
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  That kids definitely won't be desperate to work around and overcome. But I'm sort-of in favor, to encourage technical skills. Set up society so kids have to learn pentesting to see boobs, and seven proxies to not get found out and told off by the local morality commisar. Instant generational competence upgrade.
macspoofing 6y ago
That needs to be qualified ... greatly. 1) There is such a thing as homeschool. 2) Schools are closed because of government mandated lockdowns. Not every region or nation decided to close their schools. In fact, most didn't. We're not even sure if that level of lockdown was good policy. Certainly there are credible epidemiologists who vehemently disagree with either lockdows or school closures. 3) The level of learning by remote instruction ... the data isn't out yet, but it isn't looking great. Maybe it's better than nothing but maybe not by much. 4) This is a generational pandemic that came suddenly and required big government bureaucracies to turn on a dime, and the internet to facilitate remote work was the most natural choice. But what are you saying, had this happened in 1992, no learning would be done? Or as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" and we would find alternatives. We educated children just fine before the internet. In fact I suspect we would come up with something better than zoom classes. 5) But OK. Let's give the internet points for assisting with this pandemic. Let's draft laws that in the event of global pandemics you leverage the internet for remote learning. What is your argument for post-pandemic world? But overall I vehemently disagree with the notion that: "No internet == no teaching."