7 ms·

This is how things have worked for countless years, and worked reasonably well. Things have never worked that way for any other medium. Mass internet access ha

This is how things have worked for countless years, and worked reasonably well. Things have never worked that way for any other medium. Mass internet access has only been around 15 to 30 years, depending on how you count it and arguably it has had disastrous impact on the well-being and mental health of children. Yes, parents shouldn't be leaving their kids alone with the internet, but: 1. Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet and if we can create rules that will leave their children less messed up, we should do so. We all pay a price when parents raise messed up kids. 2. Even for strict parents and well meaning children, it is so, so much easier to access poisonous things on the internet than on other mediums. It is hard to keep it out 24/7, it needs to be harder to access bad things. 3. As a strict parent, it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, sucks having to battle with kids about why their peers can do something they can't. Without common norms and common rules, their is an incentive for parents to defect by being the "cool" parent. And the reality of life is that no matter what parents do, teenagers are in large part "raised" by their peers. Teenagers view their peers as a source of authority because they have to live with their peers of the rest of their lives, peers represent the new generation. So what indulgent parents allow their children to do matters for my ability to parent my own child.

autoexec 4y ago
> Things have never worked that way for any other medium. they've been working that way for every other medium. Some movies are good for kids, some are full of sex and gore. Parents have the responsibility to keep their kids from watching movies with content they don't want their kids to see. It's the same with TV shows and video games and books and music and plays and puppet shows. All of those mediums exist, and some content will be good for kids and other content is not intended for them. It has always been the job of parents to make sure they aren't sitting in their kids in front of things they don't want them to see/hear. >Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet... As a strict parent, it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, "Being a parent is hard and some people do it better than others" is not a valid reason to censor content for everyone regardless of their age, or for forcing everyone to hand over personal information and identify themselves to access uncensored content.
- kube-system 4y ago
  All of your examples are situations where the law in many countries does require content providers to safeguard children from consuming adult content regardless of the intervention of their parents.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I can't speak to non-US countries, but there is no law in the US that requires a bookstore, a used video game store, or a cable TV provider to prevent children from seeing things their parents don't want them exposed to. Neither Comcast or HBO are going around checking IDs before airing Game of Thrones. I'm curious about which countries would require such a thing.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      V-CHIP and ratings information in broadcasts are required by law. Comcast and HBO refuse to sell their services to minors, and their products all support parental controls. Brick and mortar stores open to children do not display pornography, and those that do, prohibit entry to children. Providing this material to them is a crime. Some places in the US did have laws regarding ESRB ratings on video games until SCOTUS recently overturned them. etc.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > V-CHIP and ratings information in broadcasts are required by law. Ratings and V-chip use aren't enforced by law however. Ratings are intended to help parents decide what to allow their kids to watch, not to make the choice for adults or require adults to prove they are over a certain age to access content. V-chips give parents a tool to help block some things when and if they decide to, but most people never use it. > Comcast and HBO refuse to sell their services to minors ISPs don't sell their services to minors either. Adults sign up for services and it's their job to decide what their own children see on those services. > Brick and mortar stores open to children do not display pornography They do in the US. Any child can walk into Barnes & Noble and see porn on the shelves for sale, or open a book and read graphic descriptions of any number of sexual and violent acts. At the Barnes & Noble near me, porn is kept closer to the children's books than bibles are. Actually, any kid can walk into the store and open a bible and read descriptions of sexual and violent acts. Libraries also do not police what content children can access within their walls. > Providing this material to them is a crime. Not at all, as shown above. > Some places in the US did have laws regarding ESRB ratings on video games until SCOTUS recently overturned them. etc. Another example of an overbroad and dangerous California law designed to "protect the children" and it's a damn good thing it was struck down by the courts. The government has no business policing what media I can see as an adult or in policing what media I can show to my own children.
akira2501 4y ago
> Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet and if we can create rules that will leave their children less messed up, we should do so. Then we should make a law that holds parents responsible for poor decision making. It's not incumbent on anyone else to make the world a "less messed up" place for them, I had zero say in whether you got to have children or not.. you just decided to do it one day. Further, most of us don't believe that this law as written or any law in general stands a chance at actually addressing your claim. This law does a really good job of protecting entrenched entrants and denying new startups access to the internet by creating unnecessary technical barriers that cost a lot to erect but don't actually protect children. It's the worst of all outcomes, if you actually care about "messed up" children. > it is so, so much easier to access poisonous things on the internet than on other mediums Is "two children talking to each other" a medium or not? If so, I don't think the internet holds a candle to this. > it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, sucks having to battle with kids about why their peers can do something they can't. So.. because some parents find it hard to be strict, we have to force all parents to be strict. And if they aren't? Should we take their children away? I mean, if they're too tempted to be "cool" then we shouldn't even allow that to occur under any circumstance, should we?
- hgsgm 4y ago

autoexec 4y ago

> Things have never worked that way for any other medium. they've been working that way for every other medium. Some movies are good for kids, some are full of sex and gore. Parents have the responsibility to keep their kids from watching movies with content they don't want their kids to see. It's the same with TV shows and video games and books and music and plays and puppet shows. All of those mediums exist, and some content will be good for kids and other content is not intended for them. It has always been the job of parents to make sure they aren't sitting in their kids in front of things they don't want them to see/hear. >Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet... As a strict parent, it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, "Being a parent is hard and some people do it better than others" is not a valid reason to censor content for everyone regardless of their age, or for forcing everyone to hand over personal information and identify themselves to access uncensored content.

kube-system 4y ago
All of your examples are situations where the law in many countries does require content providers to safeguard children from consuming adult content regardless of the intervention of their parents.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I can't speak to non-US countries, but there is no law in the US that requires a bookstore, a used video game store, or a cable TV provider to prevent children from seeing things their parents don't want them exposed to. Neither Comcast or HBO are going around checking IDs before airing Game of Thrones. I'm curious about which countries would require such a thing.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    V-CHIP and ratings information in broadcasts are required by law. Comcast and HBO refuse to sell their services to minors, and their products all support parental controls. Brick and mortar stores open to children do not display pornography, and those that do, prohibit entry to children. Providing this material to them is a crime. Some places in the US did have laws regarding ESRB ratings on video games until SCOTUS recently overturned them. etc.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > V-CHIP and ratings information in broadcasts are required by law. Ratings and V-chip use aren't enforced by law however. Ratings are intended to help parents decide what to allow their kids to watch, not to make the choice for adults or require adults to prove they are over a certain age to access content. V-chips give parents a tool to help block some things when and if they decide to, but most people never use it. > Comcast and HBO refuse to sell their services to minors ISPs don't sell their services to minors either. Adults sign up for services and it's their job to decide what their own children see on those services. > Brick and mortar stores open to children do not display pornography They do in the US. Any child can walk into Barnes & Noble and see porn on the shelves for sale, or open a book and read graphic descriptions of any number of sexual and violent acts. At the Barnes & Noble near me, porn is kept closer to the children's books than bibles are. Actually, any kid can walk into the store and open a bible and read descriptions of sexual and violent acts. Libraries also do not police what content children can access within their walls. > Providing this material to them is a crime. Not at all, as shown above. > Some places in the US did have laws regarding ESRB ratings on video games until SCOTUS recently overturned them. etc. Another example of an overbroad and dangerous California law designed to "protect the children" and it's a damn good thing it was struck down by the courts. The government has no business policing what media I can see as an adult or in policing what media I can show to my own children.

akira2501 4y ago

> Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet and if we can create rules that will leave their children less messed up, we should do so. Then we should make a law that holds parents responsible for poor decision making. It's not incumbent on anyone else to make the world a "less messed up" place for them, I had zero say in whether you got to have children or not.. you just decided to do it one day. Further, most of us don't believe that this law as written or any law in general stands a chance at actually addressing your claim. This law does a really good job of protecting entrenched entrants and denying new startups access to the internet by creating unnecessary technical barriers that cost a lot to erect but don't actually protect children. It's the worst of all outcomes, if you actually care about "messed up" children. > it is so, so much easier to access poisonous things on the internet than on other mediums Is "two children talking to each other" a medium or not? If so, I don't think the internet holds a candle to this. > it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, sucks having to battle with kids about why their peers can do something they can't. So.. because some parents find it hard to be strict, we have to force all parents to be strict. And if they aren't? Should we take their children away? I mean, if they're too tempted to be "cool" then we shouldn't even allow that to occur under any circumstance, should we?

hgsgm 4y ago