3 ms·

Yes but kids who do not want to see porn (or people cut in pieces) will not see it accidentally. Isn't that good?

gs17 3y ago
But now the promise goes from "kids can only see safe things" to "kids can only see safe things unless they want to see a single unsafe thing, then they see everything". With "safe things" being a government-created whitelist, it's going to be pretty easy for almost every kid to want "unsafe things" that aren't porn or gore. They'll want to play games (by your standards, even a T rated game is unsafe since it's T for Teen, not T for Twelve-Year-Old), watch whatever videos (zero anime/cartoon/whatever streaming sites would be deemed safe), and use social media. This whole filter would be pointless if you accept it being easy to get around.
- codedokode 3y ago
  What you are describing are small issues. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent the regulations (like children who drink alcohol or smoke). Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. Regarding movie sites, there are paid sites where you can legally watch anime or cartoons, and I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content.
  - gs17 3y ago
    >Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? That has an objective standard and a clear harm to children (and adults, but we're not able to prevent it). Meanwhile, there would definitely be a wide range of relatively harmless content arbitrarily not on your whitelist. >Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. This is a good improvement on your idea, but it won't fix a lot of the issues people have with it. >I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content. Not the anime or cartoons I would have wanted to watch as a minor. The Simpsons, Family Guy, do I need to go on to South Park or Rick and Morty? Banned, there's sexuality and violence. Kids want these and will work around it.

gs17 3y ago

But now the promise goes from "kids can only see safe things" to "kids can only see safe things unless they want to see a single unsafe thing, then they see everything". With "safe things" being a government-created whitelist, it's going to be pretty easy for almost every kid to want "unsafe things" that aren't porn or gore. They'll want to play games (by your standards, even a T rated game is unsafe since it's T for Teen, not T for Twelve-Year-Old), watch whatever videos (zero anime/cartoon/whatever streaming sites would be deemed safe), and use social media. This whole filter would be pointless if you accept it being easy to get around.

codedokode 3y ago
What you are describing are small issues. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent the regulations (like children who drink alcohol or smoke). Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. Regarding movie sites, there are paid sites where you can legally watch anime or cartoons, and I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content.
- gs17 3y ago
  >Does it mean that we should sell alcohol without age verification? That has an objective standard and a clear harm to children (and adults, but we're not able to prevent it). Meanwhile, there would definitely be a wide range of relatively harmless content arbitrarily not on your whitelist. >Instead of one "safe mode" there could be several, for example "safe for all", "safe for teens" etc. This is a good improvement on your idea, but it won't fix a lot of the issues people have with it. >I am sure they will pass the certification for safe content. Not the anime or cartoons I would have wanted to watch as a minor. The Simpsons, Family Guy, do I need to go on to South Park or Rick and Morty? Banned, there's sexuality and violence. Kids want these and will work around it.