4 ms·

I’ll say it again: the fact an adult has to sign up and pay for internet service and devices that can access those services should be all the age verification n

I’ll say it again: the fact an adult has to sign up and pay for internet service and devices that can access those services should be all the age verification needed, full stop. If parents don’t want kids getting into mischief online, then they need to restrict device and network access appropriately. The internet was never intended for children, and we need to stop placing the onus on other adults to police themselves instead of on parents to police their children.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
It was never about "protecting the children", that's just the glazing they wrap internet censorship in so citizens would swallow it. Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed, are now suddenly the ones pushing for Internet ID to "protect the children". If they cared so much about the children, why didn't they go after the grooming gangs immediately, instead of trying to hide it. What they want is internet censorship, to take away the internet freedom of assembly, the ability to control and ban any criticism from the public targeting politicians and the elite the same way they do to mainstream media. No more people taking about political scandals, corruption, illegal immigration, sex scandals, Epstein list, Ukraine, Gaza, law enforcement abuse, mass shootings, etc, they don't give a damn about the kids.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  I’m aware, but I go right back to the substance of the original conceit instead of letting myself get dragged into the details; that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children, and it is the sole responsibility of parents to protect their children in adults-only spaces like the internet.
  - crinkly 1y ago
    Eh use their own hammer against them. Calling someone a pedophile is libel in the UK. Sue them!
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      Maybe in the UK it is, but not necessarily in other jurisdictions. Besides - and you gotta trust me on this - down that way lies madness, and it’s honestly part of their intent (see: Streisand Effect) by libeling or slandering you. Healthy, adult-only spaces online have been leading a “no minors” crusade for decades. We bar minors from our spaces, and promptly eject them when discovered. That said, we’re also far more familiar with any politician or puritan with the reality that kids will find a way into adults-only spaces if they really want to be there, and likely succeed because their parents are wholly absent or utterly incompetent at managing their kid’s online presence and access. This always goes back to the parents. Every single time.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    > that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them. >You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      > That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield. Here’s the uncomfortable truth to that point: we already know this, but we’re the exception to the norm. Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content. That’s not remotely true, but more people believe that narrative than the technically correct argument that this is all just a mass surveillance ploy by the government to weed out and persecute “undesirables” by wielding sex as a weapon. So now picture how we sound making the technically correct argument to the masses who believe the narrative: we sound batshit insane, and they won’t listen to us. Instead if we take the side of faulting absentee parents for failing to police their kids online, then that usually results in their defensive rebuttal of “we both work full-time, and I don’t have the time or skill to do this!” That’s what we want to hear. That argument can be reasoned with, because they’re correct in their justification, even if the act they’re justifying is wrong. Once they admit that, we can take their side in more constructive ways, like: * Yeah, tech companies do make it too easy for kids to go online and wade into adult spaces. Big Tech and Social Media companies should do more to curate a child-only space that’s entirely curated rather than throwing them onto the open internet by default * Yes, the fact everything requires kids to be online in front of a screen is bad, and we should be mandating kids have healthier relationships with technology by limiting their access or promoting better understanding of its functions * Yeah, a society where both parents have to work full-time to survive does hinder child development and prohibits parents from nurturing their growth in desired ways. We should build a society where one parent can stay home full-time and be the caregiver and mentor children need to thrive * Yeah, these devices are deliberately complicated to prevent easy moderation by parents of their children, and it’s by design. We should create regulations that make it easier for parents to secure their children’s devices, not make it easier for kids to get online See? Once we pivot the argument back to, “You’re right in your feelings but wrong in your attack vector, let’s work together on this”, we’ll get more support and allies in building a better solution for everyone.
- scott_w 1y ago
  > Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed Please don’t spread lies to make your point. The current Prime Minister was the DPP who oversaw the prosecution of the Rochdale scandal and worked on changing reporting and investigation. Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s interview with the News Agents if you’d like a citation.
  - pixxel 1y ago
    [dead]
kylecazar 1y ago
There's a lot of precedent in the real world to force providers of a service/product to verify the age of the consumer. What is so special about services delivered over the internet? I think this pov tends to come from people that are nostalgic for the wild west days of the web. It doesn't matter if the internet was not originally intended for children -- they're here, en masse, and now society is looking for solutions.
- EA-3167 1y ago
  One of THE major selling points for the internet is the option of anonymity, is that true for your other examples? I'd add what exactly is the point in this context? For alcohol sales or tobacco sales you can see the rationale in public health, clearly stated data about reducing accidental deaths, road accidents, and violence. Where is the equivalent here?
  - calvinmorrison 1y ago
    that's also the selling point of the illegal underground gambling strip club speak easy i often go to.
  - kylecazar 1y ago
    In the U.S, to get into an R-rated movie without a parent you need to show ID to prove that you are 17. But you can watch videos of people being beheaded in subreddits by simply signing in. My point is that if a society decides that certain content should be age restricted -- it being on the internet shouldn't make the difference. I largely think that age restriction laws are ridiculous. BUT, I don't think the internet is some special haven, exempt from all of society's standards/laws enforced offline.
    - yugioh3 1y ago
      your first statement is not correct. at theaters in the US, ID is only required if the moviegoer appears under 17. there is no blanket ID check nor recorded storage of those IDs. also worth noting that in most places in the US, it’s not a legal requirement to card, but a industry agreement with the MPAA (self regulation)
jajuuka 1y ago
I disagree. The internet was intended for children. It was intended for everyone. Getting access to information, learning material, how to's, class work, doing class work, research, etc are just as much a part of the internet as surfing Pornhub or gambling. I do agree with everything else though. The onus is on the parents to do their job as a parent. If the goal is to protect children then improve the tools available to parents. They already have tons but the work is never done.
- cowboylowrez 1y ago
  "the internet was intended for children" is pretty much like saying "little boy was intended for hiroshima" haha
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > The internet was intended for children. It was intended for everyone. ARPANET and the related early nets were intended for sharing research and sharing scarce computing resources for research purposes. Everything else was an accident of the telecoms wanting to get their respective beaks wet.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    This^ Requiring age verification online would be like requiring my ID every time I wanted to drink a beer I already bought. I already had to give my ID when buying internet service, and again when I got the credit card I use to pay for it, and again for the bank account I use to pay the credit card, and the job that puts money into my bank account, and to buy the car that gets me to and from these places. If you’ve allowed a minor online without so much as a web filter in place, you’ve already lost the battle. Punishing strangers for your failure to police your own network devices and children is a complete abdication of your responsibilities as a parent.
    - toast0 1y ago
      > I already had to give my ID when buying internet service, and again when I got the credit card I use to pay for it, and again for the bank account I use to pay the credit card, and the job that puts money into my bank account, and to buy the car that gets me to and from these places. I'm not accustomed to providing ID to get internet service. Some providers run a credit check, but many don't. And if they don't check credit, they don't need your ID. At least in the US, there's an army of prepaid cell providers that don't offer credit and don't check ids. Prepaid credit cards are a thing. Bring some cash to a grocery store, and for a small fee, you can get an internet capable payment method. Or my local credit union offers debit cards for 'teen checking' accounts, but there's no age restriction; they check ID, and I'm pretty sure they require an adult sponsor.
Klonoar 1y ago
It kind of blows my mind that the early internet had explicit carve outs for kids-only spaces (AOL Kids Only or whatever, Yahooligans, etc). I’m sure someone has tried to bring it back but it’s interesting to me that the public at large seems to have forgotten these ideas.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

It was never about "protecting the children", that's just the glazing they wrap internet censorship in so citizens would swallow it. Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed, are now suddenly the ones pushing for Internet ID to "protect the children". If they cared so much about the children, why didn't they go after the grooming gangs immediately, instead of trying to hide it. What they want is internet censorship, to take away the internet freedom of assembly, the ability to control and ban any criticism from the public targeting politicians and the elite the same way they do to mainstream media. No more people taking about political scandals, corruption, illegal immigration, sex scandals, Epstein list, Ukraine, Gaza, law enforcement abuse, mass shootings, etc, they don't give a damn about the kids.

stego-tech 1y ago
I’m aware, but I go right back to the substance of the original conceit instead of letting myself get dragged into the details; that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children, and it is the sole responsibility of parents to protect their children in adults-only spaces like the internet.
- crinkly 1y ago
  Eh use their own hammer against them. Calling someone a pedophile is libel in the UK. Sue them!
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    Maybe in the UK it is, but not necessarily in other jurisdictions. Besides - and you gotta trust me on this - down that way lies madness, and it’s honestly part of their intent (see: Streisand Effect) by libeling or slandering you. Healthy, adult-only spaces online have been leading a “no minors” crusade for decades. We bar minors from our spaces, and promptly eject them when discovered. That said, we’re also far more familiar with any politician or puritan with the reality that kids will find a way into adults-only spaces if they really want to be there, and likely succeed because their parents are wholly absent or utterly incompetent at managing their kid’s online presence and access. This always goes back to the parents. Every single time.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  > that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them. >You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    > That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield. Here’s the uncomfortable truth to that point: we already know this, but we’re the exception to the norm. Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content. That’s not remotely true, but more people believe that narrative than the technically correct argument that this is all just a mass surveillance ploy by the government to weed out and persecute “undesirables” by wielding sex as a weapon. So now picture how we sound making the technically correct argument to the masses who believe the narrative: we sound batshit insane, and they won’t listen to us. Instead if we take the side of faulting absentee parents for failing to police their kids online, then that usually results in their defensive rebuttal of “we both work full-time, and I don’t have the time or skill to do this!” That’s what we want to hear. That argument can be reasoned with, because they’re correct in their justification, even if the act they’re justifying is wrong. Once they admit that, we can take their side in more constructive ways, like: * Yeah, tech companies do make it too easy for kids to go online and wade into adult spaces. Big Tech and Social Media companies should do more to curate a child-only space that’s entirely curated rather than throwing them onto the open internet by default * Yes, the fact everything requires kids to be online in front of a screen is bad, and we should be mandating kids have healthier relationships with technology by limiting their access or promoting better understanding of its functions * Yeah, a society where both parents have to work full-time to survive does hinder child development and prohibits parents from nurturing their growth in desired ways. We should build a society where one parent can stay home full-time and be the caregiver and mentor children need to thrive * Yeah, these devices are deliberately complicated to prevent easy moderation by parents of their children, and it’s by design. We should create regulations that make it easier for parents to secure their children’s devices, not make it easier for kids to get online See? Once we pivot the argument back to, “You’re right in your feelings but wrong in your attack vector, let’s work together on this”, we’ll get more support and allies in building a better solution for everyone.
scott_w 1y ago
> Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed Please don’t spread lies to make your point. The current Prime Minister was the DPP who oversaw the prosecution of the Rochdale scandal and worked on changing reporting and investigation. Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s interview with the News Agents if you’d like a citation.
- pixxel 1y ago
  [dead]

kylecazar 1y ago

There's a lot of precedent in the real world to force providers of a service/product to verify the age of the consumer. What is so special about services delivered over the internet? I think this pov tends to come from people that are nostalgic for the wild west days of the web. It doesn't matter if the internet was not originally intended for children -- they're here, en masse, and now society is looking for solutions.

EA-3167 1y ago
One of THE major selling points for the internet is the option of anonymity, is that true for your other examples? I'd add what exactly is the point in this context? For alcohol sales or tobacco sales you can see the rationale in public health, clearly stated data about reducing accidental deaths, road accidents, and violence. Where is the equivalent here?
- calvinmorrison 1y ago
  that's also the selling point of the illegal underground gambling strip club speak easy i often go to.
- kylecazar 1y ago
  In the U.S, to get into an R-rated movie without a parent you need to show ID to prove that you are 17. But you can watch videos of people being beheaded in subreddits by simply signing in. My point is that if a society decides that certain content should be age restricted -- it being on the internet shouldn't make the difference. I largely think that age restriction laws are ridiculous. BUT, I don't think the internet is some special haven, exempt from all of society's standards/laws enforced offline.
  - yugioh3 1y ago
    your first statement is not correct. at theaters in the US, ID is only required if the moviegoer appears under 17. there is no blanket ID check nor recorded storage of those IDs. also worth noting that in most places in the US, it’s not a legal requirement to card, but a industry agreement with the MPAA (self regulation)

jajuuka 1y ago

I disagree. The internet was intended for children. It was intended for everyone. Getting access to information, learning material, how to's, class work, doing class work, research, etc are just as much a part of the internet as surfing Pornhub or gambling. I do agree with everything else though. The onus is on the parents to do their job as a parent. If the goal is to protect children then improve the tools available to parents. They already have tons but the work is never done.

cowboylowrez 1y ago
"the internet was intended for children" is pretty much like saying "little boy was intended for hiroshima" haha
TimorousBestie 1y ago
> The internet was intended for children. It was intended for everyone. ARPANET and the related early nets were intended for sharing research and sharing scarce computing resources for research purposes. Everything else was an accident of the telecoms wanting to get their respective beaks wet.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  This^ Requiring age verification online would be like requiring my ID every time I wanted to drink a beer I already bought. I already had to give my ID when buying internet service, and again when I got the credit card I use to pay for it, and again for the bank account I use to pay the credit card, and the job that puts money into my bank account, and to buy the car that gets me to and from these places. If you’ve allowed a minor online without so much as a web filter in place, you’ve already lost the battle. Punishing strangers for your failure to police your own network devices and children is a complete abdication of your responsibilities as a parent.
  - toast0 1y ago
    > I already had to give my ID when buying internet service, and again when I got the credit card I use to pay for it, and again for the bank account I use to pay the credit card, and the job that puts money into my bank account, and to buy the car that gets me to and from these places. I'm not accustomed to providing ID to get internet service. Some providers run a credit check, but many don't. And if they don't check credit, they don't need your ID. At least in the US, there's an army of prepaid cell providers that don't offer credit and don't check ids. Prepaid credit cards are a thing. Bring some cash to a grocery store, and for a small fee, you can get an internet capable payment method. Or my local credit union offers debit cards for 'teen checking' accounts, but there's no age restriction; they check ID, and I'm pretty sure they require an adult sponsor.

Klonoar 1y ago

It kind of blows my mind that the early internet had explicit carve outs for kids-only spaces (AOL Kids Only or whatever, Yahooligans, etc). I’m sure someone has tried to bring it back but it’s interesting to me that the public at large seems to have forgotten these ideas.