6 ms·

I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed

I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many avenues. Blocking teens from generally interacting with other people online certainly looks like a hamfisted attempt at ideological preservation. It won't work.

nerdjon 3y ago
If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.
mrangle 3y ago
There's nothing hamfisted about monitoring what other adults say to teens (and younger) when alone. It falls under basic supervision of minors, in order to prevent abuse. Including abuse that abusers try to shoehorn in under the guise of noble cause. For example, like sexual grooming, cultic induction, political radicalization, etc. Anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult. I mean that in two fashions. The first is that it can be said in the presence of a guardian. If it can't be, that's a red flag for abusive and grooming behavior. Children have what is known as "guardians" for a reason. They are charged with making decisions for the child until that child is an adult. Which includes making decisions about steering them around abusive adults. Trying to circumvent that firewall is red flag behavior. Everyone who aims to do this should know how they are framing themselves. If an adult has something to say to children that is outside of the known school curriculum, then there is zero reason that it can't be said to their guardian at the same time. The second fashion that I mean the assertion that "anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult" is the following: If someone believes that what a parent teaches a child is misguided, then there is no reason whatsoever that their alternate presentation of facts cannot wait until the child is an adult. Assuming that their guardian wants to sheild them from that alternative view. Needing to present alternative views to a child, instead of an adult who is more capable of wieghing what they say, falls in the same category of suspicious red flag behavior. You may have appreciated the alternative views that you sought out as a child, but the truth is that you circumvented your parent's guardianship. And if your current views are valid or more valid, then they would have remained so once presented to you as an adult.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  Teens shouldn't be coddled as though they are children. They should be given responsibilities and some amount of autonomy. Prepare them for when they eventually screw up and they will be okay. Also, they are probably being exposed to way worse shit by their peers in school than from using the internet.

nerdjon 3y ago

If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.

mrangle 3y ago

There's nothing hamfisted about monitoring what other adults say to teens (and younger) when alone. It falls under basic supervision of minors, in order to prevent abuse. Including abuse that abusers try to shoehorn in under the guise of noble cause. For example, like sexual grooming, cultic induction, political radicalization, etc. Anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult. I mean that in two fashions. The first is that it can be said in the presence of a guardian. If it can't be, that's a red flag for abusive and grooming behavior. Children have what is known as "guardians" for a reason. They are charged with making decisions for the child until that child is an adult. Which includes making decisions about steering them around abusive adults. Trying to circumvent that firewall is red flag behavior. Everyone who aims to do this should know how they are framing themselves. If an adult has something to say to children that is outside of the known school curriculum, then there is zero reason that it can't be said to their guardian at the same time. The second fashion that I mean the assertion that "anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult" is the following: If someone believes that what a parent teaches a child is misguided, then there is no reason whatsoever that their alternate presentation of facts cannot wait until the child is an adult. Assuming that their guardian wants to sheild them from that alternative view. Needing to present alternative views to a child, instead of an adult who is more capable of wieghing what they say, falls in the same category of suspicious red flag behavior. You may have appreciated the alternative views that you sought out as a child, but the truth is that you circumvented your parent's guardianship. And if your current views are valid or more valid, then they would have remained so once presented to you as an adult.

evantbyrne 3y ago
Teens shouldn't be coddled as though they are children. They should be given responsibilities and some amount of autonomy. Prepare them for when they eventually screw up and they will be okay. Also, they are probably being exposed to way worse shit by their peers in school than from using the internet.