7 ms·

I know that this war is already lost but I still strongly believe that children do not belong on the internet. They are too easily influenced and social media

I know that this war is already lost but I still strongly believe that children do not belong on the internet. They are too easily influenced and social media makes it easy for them to post stuff that they might later regret. The internet never forgets. And scrolling social media on their tablets does NOT build any worthwhile technological competency. Yes, in the era of desktop computers having early access to technology was very beneficial but smart phones and tablets are way too dumped down to offer much benefits. The new generations are actually less tech savy than many millennials. Also making the internet save for children requires for adults to give up too much freedom. A free internet and a child friendly internet do not mix. The need for age verification is already very problematic, allowing for easier identification and tracking. And yes, again, I know it is not realistic, it would be probably very difficult for children to not participate in social media but still we maybe should talk about how it might not be that great for their development in the first place.

ethbr0 5y ago
> I still strongly believe that children do not belong on the internet. They are too easily influenced and social media makes it easy for them to post stuff that they might later regret. [...] Also making the internet [safe] for children requires for adults to give up too much freedom. This is the most concisely I've heard it put. As a member of the last pre-Internet childhood generation, now with children of my own, I cannot agree more. Things used to be better as children. Full stop. Now we have predatory social and game companies abusing legal but immoral dark patterns for addiction, revenue, and data collection, to the detriment of their users' development, mental health, and lives. Edit: Here's a direct link to the Code: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/ico-codes-of-practice/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... (If on mobile, click on "Contents" on the top left to navigate down to the individual provisions)
- altacc 5y ago
  I despair of these dark, addictive patterns . I vet games for my children and I long for the days of simply buying a game and that was it. Now there's a confusing barrage of points, coins, gems, crates, etc... that not only make the game "pay to win" but also create addiction and gambling patterns in young brians. My children think I'm mean for not letting them play the games their friends are playing but I think they're better off for it.
  - antasvara 5y ago
    I've aways wondered how parents balance the desire to limit screen time with the social pressure to play specific games/be on specific apps. I had my screen time limited growing up and I'm grateful for it, because it made me mor patient and allowed me to focus on other stuff. However, even near the end of middle school, it was already getting tough to be social without playing video games or being on social media. Have you found any of these issues with your own kids, or have things changed for the better in that respect?
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      I suppose FOMO is real, but I don't think of missing out on video games as particularly "tough."
      - altacc 5y ago
        Playground peer pressure can be relatively tough enough to upset kids.
      - antasvara 5y ago
        I mean, peer pressure is tough as a general rule. It's no different than the peer pressure associated with wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, being interested in classically "dorky" stuff, etc. There's also an element of communication outside of school. Nowadays (and this is based off of what the kids I work with tell me, so YMMV) it seems that a lot of what students do after school is related to screens. Students talk to each other through Roblox, play Minecraft instead of board games, etc. It's hard to come up with an analogy because the "in" toy/subject from grade school varies widely by age. At least in my age range, an analogous type of pressure would be Pokemon cards. Talking about Pokemon and playing with the cards dominated most conversations, so not having them made it a lot harder to interact with your peers. This may be a US thing though, as I'm not super aware of how grade school social standing works in other countries.
        altacc 5y ago
igammarays 5y ago
> And scrolling social media on their tablets does NOT build any worthwhile technological competency. This is the most counterintuitive thing that most people don't realize. Early screen exposure to addictive digital content actually reduces the chance that your kid will become a genius with deep understanding of the underlying tech. Early computers were about building, not consuming.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Exactly, big difference between figuring out how to find and launch gorillas.bas and how to tap an App Store icon.
- sirius87 5y ago
  > Early screen exposure to addictive digital content actually reduces the chance that your kid will become a genius with deep understanding of the underlying tech While I agree with this, I'm also skeptical about people trying to cajole a generation to shield them from all that is bad or evil. Growing up, there were a great many things I was not allowed to do, including surfing the net - coz expensive and also so that phone lines would be open. Every generation tries this futile attempt to thrust their opinions authoritatively on the next. All these kids growing up dealing with ads and interstitials could surprise us by, say, being totally immune to advertising.
  - II2II 5y ago
    Depending upon your age, surfing the net was expensive and did tie up phone lines when you were a kid. That's not about harm. That's about resources. There were boogiemen in the past. In some respects it was legitimate and in some respects in was overblown. But you have to know the child as an individual to know which category it falls into.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    > could surprise us by... being totally immune to advertising. "Inflamed hemorrhoidal tissue" "Hey Mikey! He likes it." I still have these committed to permanent memory and will probably carry them to death.
geofft 5y ago
It is because children are too easily influenced that they need access to the unrestricted internet. To pick what is perhaps a trite example at this point - yet very real - a child experiencing same-sex attraction can be easily influenced by their parents, who they spend most of their lives with, to believe that such a thing is unnatural and best off suppressed. Access to the internet cam show them that there is a very large community of people who disagree with that viewpoint. Or, more broadly, consider how historically common it is to choose the same profession as a parent. Access to the unrestricted internet can let you discover fields that may not have even existed when your parents were in college and even try them out (see also https://xkcd.com/519/ https://xkcd.com/519/). If we had stronger cultural norms of collectively raising children in the village (the whole village, not just a church of specific beliefs and traditions that attracts the like-minded), this argument wouldn't be as strong, but we don't.
- cardanome 5y ago
  Those are fair points and I do not necessarily disagree. I feel some of them should be, ideally, handled by the school though, no? For example sex education is part of the curriculum of my country and teaches without judgement about the different forms of sexuality and how to safely engage in sexual activities. I know some states in the US teach "abstinence only" which I would not call education but a crime against those children. The internet can only be a band aid here. Same with finding a profession. That is why schools teach children all the subjects and offer additional activities so they can find out what they like.
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  Maybe we can agree on this: - Unrestricted access to 4chan and Fortnite is net bad - Unrestricted access to Wikipedia is net good
- puppet-master 5y ago
  Unhindered access to the Internet for children means unlimited access by advertisers, politicians and advocacy groups to push literally whatever they want into the child's head, regardless of what that might be. For example, should it be possible for an organization like Prostasia ( https://4w.pub/prostasia-normalize-pedophilia/ https://4w.pub/prostasia-normalize-pedophilia/ ) to have unmonitored and unlimited conversations with a child through its media campaigns? The Internet as some amoral ocean of voluntarily accessed objective knowledge is such an unbelievably naive old meme by now that it is extremely disappointing to still see it crop up on HN. Humans have sorely limited attention bandwidth, and we live in a world where every bad actor (including even the Taliban https://old.reddit.com/r/MalangKhostay/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MalangKhostay/ ) has learned how to game attention to push every manner of ideological garbage down our throats in tiny increments. As an adult it's almost impossible to avoid falling prey to influencing tactics on a daily basis, why would we expect children to be more adept at navigating a global and almost completely unregulated media machine?
andrepd 5y ago
> And scrolling social media on their tablets does NOT build any worthwhile technological competency. Yes, in the era of desktop computers having early access to technology was very beneficial but smart phones and tablets are way too dumped down to offer much benefits. This is a great point. In the ~2000-2007 era computers were easy and widepsread enough to be open to a large demographic, but not dumbed down enough that they were no longer general-purpose computing platforms, transformed into corporate walled gardens like today's smartphones.
KingOfCoders 5y ago
The parents put the kids on the internet the minute they are born (or before). When the kids later use the internet themselves for many there are already dozens or hundreds of stories and pictures floating on the internet. I personally think this is irresponsible.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder how soon we will see proper start of punishing kids for their parents "violations". I can see that as realistic risk knowing how things are going. And if there is huge social media link between two...
hoseja 5y ago
Do children belong to the church? To the school?
- cardanome 5y ago
  They should got to school, yes. They can go to church if they want to but should not be pressured to go. They don't belong in religious fundamentalist churches though.
DiabloD3 5y ago
I summarize this argument, that I also share as a belief, as thus: children should not be exposed to society until they are of an age, and of proper education, that they have the integrity and proper judgement to tell people to go fuck themselves and be objectively correct to do so. I have come across many adults who skipped all the steps on this healthy progression into adulthood.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Maybe online society. They should be exposed to society in general. Likely via kindergarten, school or local hobbies. This sort of exposure is absolutely necessary for development.
slowmovintarget 5y ago
We sleep in on the weekend. I can't tell you how happy I am that kiddo has developed the habit of getting up early and digging into a book and reading. We had to pry the child away from reading all day yesterday to go outside. The secret: No internet, no video games, no TV (except an occasional animal documentary or episode of Cosmos... but this is once a month or so). I'm in tech, and I very much look forward to sharing what I know and what I love about computers and computer gaming. But not yet. Reading, writing, math, science, history, music, arts, crafts first, and no indoctrination... just learning to learn, and learning to think.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  Honest question: are you (or is s/he) concerned about missing out on the media culture and media literacy that their friends most likely share? Homosocial bonding is often done via shared knowledge of culture, whether from the Internet, computer games, or TV. This will likely be true even among the friends who share interests (e.g. book club members). Is there any chance that such an approach, extended too long, may result in addictive behavior when confronted with the huge effect of instant access to media and online discussion?
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    There is some truth to what you say, but in reality is not much of a concern. Kids pick up things at school no matter what. They'll also have more in common with other smart readers, a good thing. I personally never used the internet until I was in my mid twenties and took to it like a duck to water. Tend to laugh when folks imply you had to use it as a toddler to grasp it. True learning is substantailly different than wasting time with consumer products. An example. My kid didn't know who the kardashians were until about age ten or so, and really doesn't know much more now. That's a good thing. Garbage culture is not a thing to spend much time on.
Scarblac 5y ago
But then, do most adults belong on the Internet?
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Adulthood has its benefits.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jareklupinski 5y ago
even its creator didnt believe (his own) children should use it: https://www.mathgenie.com/blog/steve-jobs-kids-didnt-have-an-ipad.-why-should-your-kids-have-one-1 https://www.mathgenie.com/blog/steve-jobs-kids-didnt-have-an... even its creator thinks their product is creepy: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43718059 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43718059 maybe it's time to force dog-fooding: if you would not feed the product you have made to your own children, why are you selling it to others?
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I strongly believe that many adults do not belong on the Internet - including many FAANG execs. As usual, it's not a technological problem. There's no point being surprised that both kids and adults are harmed by online activity in a culture where making as much money as possible is always the primary goal, irrespective of consequences.
hinkley 5y ago
Gen X raised their kids actively rejecting some of what they felt were the worst parts of parental philosophy from the Boomers. Often reactions turn into overreactions, and the next generation may course correct. Some of what is 'wrong with Gen Z' is the consequence of Gen X trying not to fuck up their kids the way they felt they were fucked up. I expect as Gen Z comes of age and discovers philosophy, that they will be more circumspect about allowing their kids to do whatever they want unsupervised. And if not them, then their kids. The thing with Capitalism though is that it's going to harvest as much income as it can while public opinion is still undecided (legislation often trails public opinion) and even going so far as to try to delay changes in public opinion.
enlyth 5y ago
If my parents didn't let me use the computer as a kid, I would've never gained the skills and passion I had that turned into a career for me To be fair, the internet was way different back then (pre-2000 era)
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  You seemed to have conflated using a computer with social media and surveillance.
vidarh 5y ago
I really think you ought to have a look at how a child that has grown up with the internet treats it. My son has. He's had few restrictions, but conversations - both at home and at school - about what is ok. He's had his computer in the same room as me for years and is only now (at 12) given some privacy online. I know - from hearing and reading his conversations - that he and his friends are well versed in being cautious. If anything, they're far more cautious than I was when much older. E.g. the moment a stranger is on a voice channel when in some online game they'll cautious each other to avoid even first names, or rough location, and I've hard them descend on some poor unsuspecting person who dared ask one (innocent) question too many. With respect to social media, he doesn't use it. Partly because he's not yet interested much. He's aware of them, mostly via youtube videos of people pointing out all kinds of pitfalls people have gone in. He delights in showing me youtube videos of people showcasing people dumb enough to give out too much information, or posting things they shouldn't. Generally he's far more shocked about what stupid stuff people do online than I am. He installed an ad blocker of his own accord, because he was tired of being bombarded by ads he was suspicious of. He's absolutely paranoid about viruses. He'll be far quicker to assume something is a scam than I am. I know this is just one anecdote, but I think if you spend time talking to kids growing up with the internet now, they understand the net much better than you might think. Not all of them, certainly, but a larger proportion seem to understand it now than when I started using the net, where people still readily gave out their phone numbers to total strangers in chat rooms for example. As for being influenced, I'm not at all convinced that kids would do worst, or even that badly on being influenced by social media. Listening to my son and his friends, if anything net access have made them far more sceptical about not just the net but everything than my friends were growing up - my son and his friends have been bombarded with conflicting messages for years, and so they are very vary about which sources they believe, while most of my friends growing up would inherently trust whatever news source their parents preferrred and had no experience in understanding media bias or questioning the veracity of a source. > Also making the internet save for children requires for adults to give up too much freedom. A free internet and a child friendly internet do not mix. The need for age verification is already very problematic, allowing for easier identification and tracking. The faulty premise is assuming we need to make the internet "safe". The real world is not safe. Children mostly do just fine because we don't let them into it without supervision and without teaching them to take precautions. It's not perfect, but it works well enough, and it'll work better once more parents have grown up with the internet from an early age themselves.

ethbr0 5y ago

> I still strongly believe that children do not belong on the internet. They are too easily influenced and social media makes it easy for them to post stuff that they might later regret. [...] Also making the internet [safe] for children requires for adults to give up too much freedom. This is the most concisely I've heard it put. As a member of the last pre-Internet childhood generation, now with children of my own, I cannot agree more. Things used to be better as children. Full stop. Now we have predatory social and game companies abusing legal but immoral dark patterns for addiction, revenue, and data collection, to the detriment of their users' development, mental health, and lives. Edit: Here's a direct link to the Code: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/ico-codes-of-practice/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... (If on mobile, click on "Contents" on the top left to navigate down to the individual provisions)

altacc 5y ago
I despair of these dark, addictive patterns . I vet games for my children and I long for the days of simply buying a game and that was it. Now there's a confusing barrage of points, coins, gems, crates, etc... that not only make the game "pay to win" but also create addiction and gambling patterns in young brians. My children think I'm mean for not letting them play the games their friends are playing but I think they're better off for it.
- antasvara 5y ago
  I've aways wondered how parents balance the desire to limit screen time with the social pressure to play specific games/be on specific apps. I had my screen time limited growing up and I'm grateful for it, because it made me mor patient and allowed me to focus on other stuff. However, even near the end of middle school, it was already getting tough to be social without playing video games or being on social media. Have you found any of these issues with your own kids, or have things changed for the better in that respect?
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    I suppose FOMO is real, but I don't think of missing out on video games as particularly "tough."
    - altacc 5y ago
      Playground peer pressure can be relatively tough enough to upset kids.
    - antasvara 5y ago
      I mean, peer pressure is tough as a general rule. It's no different than the peer pressure associated with wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, being interested in classically "dorky" stuff, etc. There's also an element of communication outside of school. Nowadays (and this is based off of what the kids I work with tell me, so YMMV) it seems that a lot of what students do after school is related to screens. Students talk to each other through Roblox, play Minecraft instead of board games, etc. It's hard to come up with an analogy because the "in" toy/subject from grade school varies widely by age. At least in my age range, an analogous type of pressure would be Pokemon cards. Talking about Pokemon and playing with the cards dominated most conversations, so not having them made it a lot harder to interact with your peers. This may be a US thing though, as I'm not super aware of how grade school social standing works in other countries.
      - altacc 5y ago

igammarays 5y ago

> And scrolling social media on their tablets does NOT build any worthwhile technological competency. This is the most counterintuitive thing that most people don't realize. Early screen exposure to addictive digital content actually reduces the chance that your kid will become a genius with deep understanding of the underlying tech. Early computers were about building, not consuming.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Exactly, big difference between figuring out how to find and launch gorillas.bas and how to tap an App Store icon.
sirius87 5y ago
> Early screen exposure to addictive digital content actually reduces the chance that your kid will become a genius with deep understanding of the underlying tech While I agree with this, I'm also skeptical about people trying to cajole a generation to shield them from all that is bad or evil. Growing up, there were a great many things I was not allowed to do, including surfing the net - coz expensive and also so that phone lines would be open. Every generation tries this futile attempt to thrust their opinions authoritatively on the next. All these kids growing up dealing with ads and interstitials could surprise us by, say, being totally immune to advertising.
- II2II 5y ago
  Depending upon your age, surfing the net was expensive and did tie up phone lines when you were a kid. That's not about harm. That's about resources. There were boogiemen in the past. In some respects it was legitimate and in some respects in was overblown. But you have to know the child as an individual to know which category it falls into.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  > could surprise us by... being totally immune to advertising. "Inflamed hemorrhoidal tissue" "Hey Mikey! He likes it." I still have these committed to permanent memory and will probably carry them to death.

geofft 5y ago

It is because children are too easily influenced that they need access to the unrestricted internet. To pick what is perhaps a trite example at this point - yet very real - a child experiencing same-sex attraction can be easily influenced by their parents, who they spend most of their lives with, to believe that such a thing is unnatural and best off suppressed. Access to the internet cam show them that there is a very large community of people who disagree with that viewpoint. Or, more broadly, consider how historically common it is to choose the same profession as a parent. Access to the unrestricted internet can let you discover fields that may not have even existed when your parents were in college and even try them out (see also https://xkcd.com/519/ https://xkcd.com/519/). If we had stronger cultural norms of collectively raising children in the village (the whole village, not just a church of specific beliefs and traditions that attracts the like-minded), this argument wouldn't be as strong, but we don't.

cardanome 5y ago
Those are fair points and I do not necessarily disagree. I feel some of them should be, ideally, handled by the school though, no? For example sex education is part of the curriculum of my country and teaches without judgement about the different forms of sexuality and how to safely engage in sexual activities. I know some states in the US teach "abstinence only" which I would not call education but a crime against those children. The internet can only be a band aid here. Same with finding a profession. That is why schools teach children all the subjects and offer additional activities so they can find out what they like.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
Maybe we can agree on this: - Unrestricted access to 4chan and Fortnite is net bad - Unrestricted access to Wikipedia is net good
puppet-master 5y ago
Unhindered access to the Internet for children means unlimited access by advertisers, politicians and advocacy groups to push literally whatever they want into the child's head, regardless of what that might be. For example, should it be possible for an organization like Prostasia ( https://4w.pub/prostasia-normalize-pedophilia/ https://4w.pub/prostasia-normalize-pedophilia/ ) to have unmonitored and unlimited conversations with a child through its media campaigns? The Internet as some amoral ocean of voluntarily accessed objective knowledge is such an unbelievably naive old meme by now that it is extremely disappointing to still see it crop up on HN. Humans have sorely limited attention bandwidth, and we live in a world where every bad actor (including even the Taliban https://old.reddit.com/r/MalangKhostay/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MalangKhostay/ ) has learned how to game attention to push every manner of ideological garbage down our throats in tiny increments. As an adult it's almost impossible to avoid falling prey to influencing tactics on a daily basis, why would we expect children to be more adept at navigating a global and almost completely unregulated media machine?

andrepd 5y ago

> And scrolling social media on their tablets does NOT build any worthwhile technological competency. Yes, in the era of desktop computers having early access to technology was very beneficial but smart phones and tablets are way too dumped down to offer much benefits. This is a great point. In the ~2000-2007 era computers were easy and widepsread enough to be open to a large demographic, but not dumbed down enough that they were no longer general-purpose computing platforms, transformed into corporate walled gardens like today's smartphones.

KingOfCoders 5y ago

The parents put the kids on the internet the minute they are born (or before). When the kids later use the internet themselves for many there are already dozens or hundreds of stories and pictures floating on the internet. I personally think this is irresponsible.

Ekaros 5y ago
I wonder how soon we will see proper start of punishing kids for their parents "violations". I can see that as realistic risk knowing how things are going. And if there is huge social media link between two...

hoseja 5y ago

Do children belong to the church? To the school?

cardanome 5y ago
They should got to school, yes. They can go to church if they want to but should not be pressured to go. They don't belong in religious fundamentalist churches though.

DiabloD3 5y ago

I summarize this argument, that I also share as a belief, as thus: children should not be exposed to society until they are of an age, and of proper education, that they have the integrity and proper judgement to tell people to go fuck themselves and be objectively correct to do so. I have come across many adults who skipped all the steps on this healthy progression into adulthood.

Ekaros 5y ago
Maybe online society. They should be exposed to society in general. Likely via kindergarten, school or local hobbies. This sort of exposure is absolutely necessary for development.

slowmovintarget 5y ago

We sleep in on the weekend. I can't tell you how happy I am that kiddo has developed the habit of getting up early and digging into a book and reading. We had to pry the child away from reading all day yesterday to go outside. The secret: No internet, no video games, no TV (except an occasional animal documentary or episode of Cosmos... but this is once a month or so). I'm in tech, and I very much look forward to sharing what I know and what I love about computers and computer gaming. But not yet. Reading, writing, math, science, history, music, arts, crafts first, and no indoctrination... just learning to learn, and learning to think.

claudiawerner 5y ago
Honest question: are you (or is s/he) concerned about missing out on the media culture and media literacy that their friends most likely share? Homosocial bonding is often done via shared knowledge of culture, whether from the Internet, computer games, or TV. This will likely be true even among the friends who share interests (e.g. book club members). Is there any chance that such an approach, extended too long, may result in addictive behavior when confronted with the huge effect of instant access to media and online discussion?
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  There is some truth to what you say, but in reality is not much of a concern. Kids pick up things at school no matter what. They'll also have more in common with other smart readers, a good thing. I personally never used the internet until I was in my mid twenties and took to it like a duck to water. Tend to laugh when folks imply you had to use it as a toddler to grasp it. True learning is substantailly different than wasting time with consumer products. An example. My kid didn't know who the kardashians were until about age ten or so, and really doesn't know much more now. That's a good thing. Garbage culture is not a thing to spend much time on.

Scarblac 5y ago

But then, do most adults belong on the Internet?

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Adulthood has its benefits.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jareklupinski 5y ago

even its creator didnt believe (his own) children should use it: https://www.mathgenie.com/blog/steve-jobs-kids-didnt-have-an-ipad.-why-should-your-kids-have-one-1 https://www.mathgenie.com/blog/steve-jobs-kids-didnt-have-an... even its creator thinks their product is creepy: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43718059 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43718059 maybe it's time to force dog-fooding: if you would not feed the product you have made to your own children, why are you selling it to others?

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

I strongly believe that many adults do not belong on the Internet - including many FAANG execs. As usual, it's not a technological problem. There's no point being surprised that both kids and adults are harmed by online activity in a culture where making as much money as possible is always the primary goal, irrespective of consequences.

hinkley 5y ago

Gen X raised their kids actively rejecting some of what they felt were the worst parts of parental philosophy from the Boomers. Often reactions turn into overreactions, and the next generation may course correct. Some of what is 'wrong with Gen Z' is the consequence of Gen X trying not to fuck up their kids the way they felt they were fucked up. I expect as Gen Z comes of age and discovers philosophy, that they will be more circumspect about allowing their kids to do whatever they want unsupervised. And if not them, then their kids. The thing with Capitalism though is that it's going to harvest as much income as it can while public opinion is still undecided (legislation often trails public opinion) and even going so far as to try to delay changes in public opinion.

enlyth 5y ago

If my parents didn't let me use the computer as a kid, I would've never gained the skills and passion I had that turned into a career for me To be fair, the internet was way different back then (pre-2000 era)

mixmastamyk 5y ago
You seemed to have conflated using a computer with social media and surveillance.

vidarh 5y ago

I really think you ought to have a look at how a child that has grown up with the internet treats it. My son has. He's had few restrictions, but conversations - both at home and at school - about what is ok. He's had his computer in the same room as me for years and is only now (at 12) given some privacy online. I know - from hearing and reading his conversations - that he and his friends are well versed in being cautious. If anything, they're far more cautious than I was when much older. E.g. the moment a stranger is on a voice channel when in some online game they'll cautious each other to avoid even first names, or rough location, and I've hard them descend on some poor unsuspecting person who dared ask one (innocent) question too many. With respect to social media, he doesn't use it. Partly because he's not yet interested much. He's aware of them, mostly via youtube videos of people pointing out all kinds of pitfalls people have gone in. He delights in showing me youtube videos of people showcasing people dumb enough to give out too much information, or posting things they shouldn't. Generally he's far more shocked about what stupid stuff people do online than I am. He installed an ad blocker of his own accord, because he was tired of being bombarded by ads he was suspicious of. He's absolutely paranoid about viruses. He'll be far quicker to assume something is a scam than I am. I know this is just one anecdote, but I think if you spend time talking to kids growing up with the internet now, they understand the net much better than you might think. Not all of them, certainly, but a larger proportion seem to understand it now than when I started using the net, where people still readily gave out their phone numbers to total strangers in chat rooms for example. As for being influenced, I'm not at all convinced that kids would do worst, or even that badly on being influenced by social media. Listening to my son and his friends, if anything net access have made them far more sceptical about not just the net but everything than my friends were growing up - my son and his friends have been bombarded with conflicting messages for years, and so they are very vary about which sources they believe, while most of my friends growing up would inherently trust whatever news source their parents preferrred and had no experience in understanding media bias or questioning the veracity of a source. > Also making the internet save for children requires for adults to give up too much freedom. A free internet and a child friendly internet do not mix. The need for age verification is already very problematic, allowing for easier identification and tracking. The faulty premise is assuming we need to make the internet "safe". The real world is not safe. Children mostly do just fine because we don't let them into it without supervision and without teaching them to take precautions. It's not perfect, but it works well enough, and it'll work better once more parents have grown up with the internet from an early age themselves.