3 ms·

> to just take away kids' phones Absolutely. Just the first part, seriously. No need for chains and radiators. Let's ban kids under 16 from access to phones a

> to just take away kids' phones Absolutely. Just the first part, seriously. No need for chains and radiators. Let's ban kids under 16 from access to phones and the open Internet. It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. There are plenty of technologies emerging with the density of memory and GPT type compression (that's what neural networks really do... compression) to facilitate "curated education in a box", and small network (family and friends) communication.

xcdzvyn 3y ago
> It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. Honestly it'd make the internet a lot better for adults too.
jstarfish 3y ago
Sure. I was exaggerating to make my point-- in no context has "safety through disarmament" ever been a thing. The Louvre doesn't respond to people stealing paintings by disabling all the security cameras. Prisons don't protect the public by being free-range. Nuclear disarmament is too complex to go into here, but hypocrisy abounds. Barring that one incident, the Mint doesn't protect the money supply by storing it in the middle of a Walmart parking lot (predictably, it got stolen). Every time we seek to secure anything, we make the coveted object more inaccessible to pursuers. That's how Protection works. Anyone telling you lowering your guard and becoming vulnerable will somehow increase anyone's safety is one distraction away from slipping a roofie into your drink. It's the sort of gaslighting one expects from a pervert or voyeur.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Not sure I understand you. Are you seeing smartphones as a weapon? Something that is empowering?
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    In some hands, empowering, in other hands, a weapon. It's less about smartphones specifically and more an abstraction for the internet itself. Take the internet away and it removes the metaphysical vector for exploitative outreach to children. It would make it very difficult to produce new CSAM if you eliminate the channels over which children are discreetly coerced into running away or producing it themselves.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      I lived through the 70s. Worked at the BBC for a while. Nonces (kiddy fiddlers) are a social psychiatric problem. Policing networks or endpoints is treating the symptoms. Nonetheless I agree the utility that children get from access to the mainstream "Five Giant Enshitified Websites" doesn't really surmount the damage done. The main harm, in my opinion, is simply to general mental health and wellbeing. So that just adds to the case for an age restriction for smartphones. If that reduces potential contact with nonces then all-good, but the reality is that child abuse happens by people IRL, usually trusted family or neighbours. Maybe the tide is turning and we're "getting there", and that's why I defended and supported many parts of the UK Online Safety Bill - even though other parts of it are trash. However this focus on CSAM to push unworkable restrictions is the usual dishonest politics and posturing. We have more general problems with minors and the Internet, and most of them are "live rail" issues the media and politicians won't touch.

xcdzvyn 3y ago

> It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. Honestly it'd make the internet a lot better for adults too.

jstarfish 3y ago

Sure. I was exaggerating to make my point-- in no context has "safety through disarmament" ever been a thing. The Louvre doesn't respond to people stealing paintings by disabling all the security cameras. Prisons don't protect the public by being free-range. Nuclear disarmament is too complex to go into here, but hypocrisy abounds. Barring that one incident, the Mint doesn't protect the money supply by storing it in the middle of a Walmart parking lot (predictably, it got stolen). Every time we seek to secure anything, we make the coveted object more inaccessible to pursuers. That's how Protection works. Anyone telling you lowering your guard and becoming vulnerable will somehow increase anyone's safety is one distraction away from slipping a roofie into your drink. It's the sort of gaslighting one expects from a pervert or voyeur.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Not sure I understand you. Are you seeing smartphones as a weapon? Something that is empowering?
- jstarfish 3y ago
  In some hands, empowering, in other hands, a weapon. It's less about smartphones specifically and more an abstraction for the internet itself. Take the internet away and it removes the metaphysical vector for exploitative outreach to children. It would make it very difficult to produce new CSAM if you eliminate the channels over which children are discreetly coerced into running away or producing it themselves.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    I lived through the 70s. Worked at the BBC for a while. Nonces (kiddy fiddlers) are a social psychiatric problem. Policing networks or endpoints is treating the symptoms. Nonetheless I agree the utility that children get from access to the mainstream "Five Giant Enshitified Websites" doesn't really surmount the damage done. The main harm, in my opinion, is simply to general mental health and wellbeing. So that just adds to the case for an age restriction for smartphones. If that reduces potential contact with nonces then all-good, but the reality is that child abuse happens by people IRL, usually trusted family or neighbours. Maybe the tide is turning and we're "getting there", and that's why I defended and supported many parts of the UK Online Safety Bill - even though other parts of it are trash. However this focus on CSAM to push unworkable restrictions is the usual dishonest politics and posturing. We have more general problems with minors and the Internet, and most of them are "live rail" issues the media and politicians won't touch.