3 ms·

> (with the side benefit of social websites that aren't overrun with children) I've commonly seen this cited as a benefit of uncircumventable age gates, but I

> (with the side benefit of social websites that aren't overrun with children) I've commonly seen this cited as a benefit of uncircumventable age gates, but I think that most proposed systems I've seen are far stricter than they need to be for this: they have a hard line exactly at 18 or 21, and allow neither read nor write access to gated-off sites. Should a 17-year-old teenager be able to access no more social media than a 7-year-old child can? And must read access always be gated, even though gating write access would be sufficient to prevent this overrunning? Teenagers have to learn how to operate in the adult world at some point, and I worry that pushing so much access to age 18 all at once could have major unintended consequences.

zarzavat 4y ago
You don’t have to worry. Teenagers will circumvent any filter or restriction. When I was at school we circumvented the school filter and did whatever we liked on the network. Perhaps there’s a silver lining: training the next generation overcome filters develops a certain level of technical proficiency.
Stupulous 4y ago
This is a fair point. Primarily the reason that children can dominate a website is that they have so much more time to participate (and probably are more likely to contribute in a low-effort way), so putting the mark at 16 or 17 would still significantly reduce the issue. I think having places that are certified <12 would be great for kids and could be over-moderated without great consequence. A spectrum of age gates would make a very cool internet, and I'd extend that as far up as ages go (35-55? Centenarians only? Why not?).
everforward 4y ago
Those are probably a reflection of legal issues. 18 year olds are clear from child protection laws, and 21 year olds can be shown ads for alcohol (and maybe tobacco, I think that's 21 in many states now). As long as there is potential, significant liability attached to showing under-18's certain content it's safer to just not show them anything questionable until they're 18. I'm with you, I think a gradient would be developmentally better, but our legal system discourages that. I think the same thing exists across other parallels; people get a ton of options dumped on them at 18. It would probably be better to phase that in over time.

zarzavat 4y ago

You don’t have to worry. Teenagers will circumvent any filter or restriction. When I was at school we circumvented the school filter and did whatever we liked on the network. Perhaps there’s a silver lining: training the next generation overcome filters develops a certain level of technical proficiency.

Stupulous 4y ago

This is a fair point. Primarily the reason that children can dominate a website is that they have so much more time to participate (and probably are more likely to contribute in a low-effort way), so putting the mark at 16 or 17 would still significantly reduce the issue. I think having places that are certified <12 would be great for kids and could be over-moderated without great consequence. A spectrum of age gates would make a very cool internet, and I'd extend that as far up as ages go (35-55? Centenarians only? Why not?).

everforward 4y ago

Those are probably a reflection of legal issues. 18 year olds are clear from child protection laws, and 21 year olds can be shown ads for alcohol (and maybe tobacco, I think that's 21 in many states now). As long as there is potential, significant liability attached to showing under-18's certain content it's safer to just not show them anything questionable until they're 18. I'm with you, I think a gradient would be developmentally better, but our legal system discourages that. I think the same thing exists across other parallels; people get a ton of options dumped on them at 18. It would probably be better to phase that in over time.