20 ms·
Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
- kogasa240p 11mo agoIMO banning smartphone sales to kids and teens would be far more productive than digital ID shenanigans.
- Kephael 11mo agoChildren and teens don't buy their own smartphones, they get them from their parents.
- Aldipower 11mo agoOur current form of asocial media is nothing else like drug abuse.
- casesarplus1 11mo agoHow will they achieve that without introducing a requirement to identify yourself on every online platform, which some would say is probably the whole reason for introducing something promoted as being "for the children"™.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 11mo agoGiven all the information companies have about users on social media, do you really believe they can't guess the real age?
- mlmonkey 11mo agoSome people: these online companies have too much information about us! They know everything about us!! Where's muh privacy?? Same people now: how will the poor company know that it's an underage user?? Oh noes!
- delusional 11mo agothe EU is working on a system for age verification that won't identify you to the platform. The details are of course complicated, but you can imagine an openid like system run by the government that only exposes if you're old enough for Y. The platforms asks your government if you're old enough. You identify yourself to your government. Your government responds to the question with a single Boolean.
- Semaphor 11mo agoOur German national ID supports just verifying that you are over age X, with no other info given.
- high_na_euv 11mo agoBut why would you give your id?
- Semaphor 11mo agoYou don't need to, that's the thing. The site requests "are you over 18" and you use your ID to prove it without them getting any other information from it. Requires a phone with NFC, but the app is open source
- gumby271 11mo agohopefully the protocol is open source too. I'd hate to find that it just works on iOS and Google certified Android.
- Semaphor 11mo agoShould all be open, but I don't know for sure. Works with ungoogled android unless something changed. https://github.com/Governikus/AusweisApp https://github.com/Governikus/AusweisApp
- 11mo ago
- tokai 11mo agoWith digital ID. They are releasing it in a couple of months. https://digst.dk/it-loesninger/den-digitale-identitetstegnebog/ https://digst.dk/it-loesninger/den-digitale-identitetstegneb...
- stickfigure 11mo agoI look forward to being able to buy your porn surfing habits on the darkweb in a few years.
- buellerbueller 11mo ago*everyone's The difference is meaningful. It's mostly prisoners dilemma. If only one persons porn habit is available thats bad for them. If everyones (legal) porn habits are available, then it gets normalized.
- Forgeties79 11mo agoNormalized or not, the risk is you get something akin US drug enforcement: ignored for certain demographics, enforced for others. The ability to see someone's porn history is irrelevant until a government (or employer perhaps) wants to weaponize it. The problem isn't my peers, it's the people in power and how many of them lack any scruples.
- buellerbueller 11mo agoDrugs are not legal; porn is.
- Liquix 11mo agothis seems to run parallel to the "i have nothing to hide" / "well they have everyone's data, so who cares about mine" arguments. this is too narrow a view on the issue. the problem isn't that a colleague, acquaintance, neighbor, or government employee is going to snoop through your data. the problem is that once any government has everyone's data, they will feed it to PRISM-esque systems and use it to accurately model the population, granting the power to predict and shape future events.
- Glyptodon 11mo agoIn the US they'd just make the platforms massively liable and let them worry about how to enforce. No idea what they'll do in another country.
- stOneskull 11mo agowe get to see how it works in australia next month. there's already stories of kids putting on fake mustaches to fool age-of-face recognition, which is one of the methods used. i think it'll get to: "these methods aren't good enough, we'll have to enforce digital id".
- Glyptodon 11mo agoDo they make parents liable or no? I'm somewhat curious about that as an option.
- lapsis_beeftech 11mo agoChild abuse is already illegal, the law needs to be expanded to cover these new forms of harm to children. It seems reasonable that I am held criminally accountable if I expose my child to harmful Internet content like social media.
- rnimmer 11mo agoIt would be a lot simpler to only sell standard devices to adults. Kids should be using devices with curated access to specific tools and platforms meant for children.
- Telaneo 11mo agoIt'll be interesting to see what they can cook up at home. Chat Control was pushed in large part by Denmark, and Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard is on record saying some pretty disturbing things regarding the right to privacy online.[1] Now for this, they don't need the entire EU to go along, and any laws already on the books might prove ineffective to protect against means that end up achieving similar goals to Chat Control. Denmark's constitution does have a privacy paragraph, but it explicitly mentions telephone and telegraph, as well as letters.[2] Turns out online messaging doesn't count. It'd be a funny one to get to whatever court, because hopefully someone there will have a brain and use it, but it wouldn't be the first time someone didn't. [1] https://boingboing.net/2025/09/15/danish-justice-minister-we-must-break-perception-of-right-to-private-messaging.html https://boingboing.net/2025/09/15/danish-justice-minister-we... [2] https://www.grundloven.dk/ https://www.grundloven.dk/
- Svip 11mo agoWhether internet is covered by § 72 seems undetermined; as far as I can tell the Supreme Court hasn't made a decision on it; but considering that it considered fake SMS train tickets to be document fraud, even though the law text never explicitly mentions text messages: it seems clear that internet communication ought to be covered, if challenged. Regardless, this wouldn't run afoul of this. This is similar to restricting who can buy alcohol, based purely on age; the identification process is just digital. MitID - the Danish digital identification infrastructure - allows an service to request specific details about another purpose; such as their age or just a boolean value whether they are old enough. Essentially: the service can ask "is this user 18 or older?" and the ID service can respond yes or no, without providing any other PII. That's the theory at least; nothing about snooping private communication, but rather forcing the "bouncer" to actually check IDs.
- tokai 11mo ago>considering that it considered fake SMS train tickets to be document fraud, even though the law text never explicitly mentions text messages That has nothing to do with the medium of the ticket and is all about knowingly presenting a fake ticket. The ticket is a document proving your payment for travel. They could be lumps of dirt and it would still be document fraud to present a fake hand of dirt.
- worldfoodgood 11mo agoGreat. Please raise the age to 115.
- Alex2037 11mo agoyou are on social media right now.
- buellerbueller 11mo ago[flagged]
- everdrive 11mo agoAnd Tylenol is a drug just the same as heroin. Do you think that HN has the same sort of impacts on people as instagram or facebook?
- delecti 11mo agoDo you think a law which restricts "social media" will be crafted delicately enough to affect Instagram and Facebook but not HN?
- everdrive 11mo agoIn principle, certainly. In practice, Congress can't be trusted to craft more or less any law these days. I'm not necessarily sure that the law will be able to help us here, but I also think it's not helpful to take the broadest possible definition of social media to try to shutdown discussion. (I'm not suggesting that you are doing that)
- dlisboa 11mo agoI'd gladly give up HN if it means Instagram and Facebook are eradicated. Yes, yes, "those that would trade liberty for security...", but we were better off without any form of social media at all.
- 11mo ago
- School-Cotton 11mo agoGood, IMO it should be 18 if not even higher, but 15 is a good start.
- ceayo 11mo agohere we go again...
- k4rnaj1k 11mo agoThis sounds like a good idea, as most mainstream social media is in an awful state that damages mental health. But at the same time, I am against governmental invasions in personal things, so mixed feelings about the initiative overall.
- poly2it 11mo agoA reason to be cautious about propositions like these isn't just the inherent belittling of children's right to information, which can be argued for or against in certain cases, but the aspect of giving any proceeding government the ability to ban a form of media from children due to their perception of toxicity, derangement, danger, et cetera.
- Aldipower 11mo agoThe inherent belittling of children's right to the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks... Our current form of social media is a drug and it harms our children in all ways and adults too btw.
- zurfer 11mo agoI don't buy it. The most relevant critique is see is that it's hard to control the age of your users without removing anonymous accounts thus limiting privacy. Well, it's a hard problem but it doesn't feel impossible to solve. To me there is no question that children should grow up protected from harmful substances. You don't want kids to smoke, scrolling algo feeds is not better. There is enough interesting internet out there without social media!
- DocTomoe 11mo ago> You don't want kids to smoke, scrolling algo feeds is not better. That's a dogmatic axiom until you can show how TikTok causes lung cancer.
- zurfer 11mo agoYou're right, I didn't produce evidence in my comment. Smoking and lung cancer are more clear cut than social media problems in general. The effects of social media are more complex and nuanced than smoking. There are a lot of studies that show that social media has a negative effect on mental well being. When someones dies of loneliness or birth rates collapse and young people have less sex than ever, social media is never the only cause and might not even be the main reason, but it seems to play an important role. Also, I don't think all social media is bad. I do love these discussions on HN even or especially when we don't agree, but tiktok and similar services have a lot of bad incentives with regards to user well being.
- postepowanieadm 11mo agoI'm a bit suspicious: it was Denmark's government that pushed for chat control.
- notepad0x90 11mo agoIt sounds extreme, but I support banning usage of anything that runs software for children under 13. Under 13, children are still developing their minds, it is important for their welfare that they learn how to function without technological dependencies. You know how in school they used to tell us we can't use calculators to solve math problems? Same thing. It can't be done by individual parents either, because then kids would get envious and that in itself would cause more problems than it would solve. It is important for kids to get bored, to socialize in person, to solve problems the hard way, and develop the mental-muscles they need to not only function, but to make best use of modern technology. It is also important that parents don't use technology to raise their children (includes TV). Most parents just give their kids a tablet with youtube these days.
- ulrikrasmussen 11mo agoI was learning to program at age 11. This does indeed sound extreme.
- notepad0x90 11mo agoWould it have made a big difference if you learned to code at 13? Is there a pressing need as to why kids need to code at a young age? Maybe there could be exceptions for children that develop sooner? If your other developmental metrics were met early on, I don't see why an earlier age would be a problem.
- QuadmasterXLII 11mo agoI strongly suspect the network connection is the issue, not the software. Let the kids have graphing calculators!
- znpy 11mo agoI generally agree. But so much software today is useless without a network connection. Online help (anybody remember those chm files?) was often very very good, because it was supposed to be _the_ documentation for most software.
- awillen 11mo agoThe one thing I don't see and always wonder about with these sorts of things is how they define "social media". Seems like a tough thing to do - if you cast too broad a definition you'll end up with just about anywhere one can communicate on the internet, including email. If you take the very narrow approach of naming FB, IG, TikTok, etc., you almost certainly miss out on whatever the next platform is that's relevant to kids. Remember YikYak? IIRC that was worse for kids than most of the big social media sites, but how do you write a law that anticipates the next YikYak without banning everything?
- dlisboa 11mo agoI don't think it really matters if the definition is too narrow as long as you ward off the worst threats. An easier way to classify them would be by size: any social network with over 1000 users should have to regulate their users. So as soon as something starts being relevant from a public safety perspective it'll fall under the law.
- super256 11mo agoI hope they can differentiate between social media and social networks.
- trey-jones 11mo agoAs a parent who gave my oldest child a (very used) smartphone just before she turned 14, I would be in favor of making smartphones illegal under age 15 (or some other number, higher or lower I don't care). I'm pretty sure they're worse than cigarettes for the future of humanity.
- OhioMan2943 11mo agoFar worse.
- arcfour 11mo agoAs a parent, you should be able to parent your child, rather than having the government arbitrarily and capriciously do so on your behalf, and for everyone else's kids, too. As someone who got my first BlackBerry at 11, which really spurred a lot of my later interests which are now part of my career or led to it indirectly, I am opposed to paternalistic authoritarian governments making choices for everyone. (Funny anecdote, but I didn't even figure out how to sign up for Facebook until I was 11-12, because I wouldn't lie about my age and it would tell me I was too young. Heh.)
- mrtesthah 11mo agoThe problem is the kid feeling left out at school when they're the only one without a smartphone and can't participate in their friends' activities.
- elric 11mo agoThe problem is not "social media", that's just an insanely broad and poorly category. HN is probably "social media". Many games are probably "social media". The problem is that certain platforms exploit people for profit by feeding them crap, from political propaganda to ads for weight loss drugs. Many of them are designed to be addictive so folks can keep up "engagement". Enough eyeballs make all crap profitable, or something like that. On the other end of the spectrum, there are tons of great platforms that young people can benefit from, and vice versa. Including HN. Many subreddits. Tons of forums. Loads online games. Ban the exploitation. Ban the propaganda. Ban the abuse. But don't ban young people.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- doctorpangloss 11mo agoI agree that it's a broad category, and that Hacker News is social media. But of all the problematic advertising you could choose, you choose instead political advertising and semaglutide ads?
- mrweasel 11mo agoThat's probably the solution: You can run a social media, but you have to do it ad free. Charge people if you need to, but you cannot run ads. What fucks up social media is the constant need to "engagement".
- doctorpangloss 11mo agothis is a familiar discourse. Ads are more than a thing you "run," they're an idea. You can't destroy the idea of ads. "Ad free" isn't possible to guarantee. Does this make sense?
- mrweasel 11mo agoFirst part makes sense, ad free seems very possible to me, especially if backed by legislation.
- davzie 11mo agoYou can really tell the parents vs non-parents in these comments.
- porsager 11mo agoIndeed.. All those people that have kids but are not fit to be called a parent so they need the government to do their job!
- jvvw 11mo agoI'm curious as to how social media gets defined for these bans. I presume text messaging doesn't count whereas Discord/WhatsApp do? What about Minecraft and other games? What about school platforms which they can post comments/messages on? Is watching YouTube included? When I've filled in surveys about our children's social media use, they have included YouTube, which makes it look like every child is on social media.
- ricardobeat 11mo agoIt does not really require a lot of nuance. Any platforms serving short-form content using algorithmic recommendations, giving any random account infinite reach, a la Instagram/Tiktok/Youtube/Shorts/Reels/Redbook/etc are part of the problem. WhatsApp groups are a source of slightly different issues - fake news, radicalization, social bubbles - but not a source of addiction to the same level, especially among the young.
- system2 11mo agoMake it 21.
- dataflow 11mo ago> The move would give some parents — after a specific assessment — the right to let their children access social media from age 13. It wasn’t immediately clear how such a ban would be enforced: Many tech platforms already restrict pre-teens from signing up. Officials and experts say such restrictions don’t always work. This makes it almost sound like a no-op once enough children convince their parents to give exemptions. Hopefully it works out better than that.
- aanet 11mo agoThis ban (or attempt to regulate), similar to Australia's, is at least 10-15 years too late to be honest. It likely would have stopped or lessened the negative impact of FB (and its ilk, but mostly FB, tbh) on much of the society. Now we know, of course, and everything in hindsight is 20/20. It's STILL worth trying to regulate social media, now emboldened and firmly established as a rite of passage among youth, adults, and older generations.
- zhengiszen 11mo agoIsraeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has all crypto fascists governments become wary
- swframe2 11mo agoThere is an interesting exploration of human networks discussed in this veritasium video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYlon2tvywA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYlon2tvywA Basically, when network connectivity increases, the "bad" nodes can overwhelm the "good" nodes. The other ideas discussed are really interesting; well worth watching.
- aborsy 11mo agoEven over the age 15, they have to be restricted. What are the benefits, with excessive use at least?
- everfrustrated 11mo agoA reminder, a ban on <$age is actually an ban on $everyone who doesn't provide positive proof of age using identity document.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- dyauspitr 11mo agoThis is not enough, we have to ban under 15s from having smart phones in general.
- serial_dev 11mo agoOK very nice… Now tell me how will they use this law to increase surveillance on everyone.
- submeta 11mo agoLet‘s ban social media altogether. In twenty years from now we will have found out that social media is more harmful than tobacco and alcohol combined.
- yieldcrv 11mo agoevery affliction people think children have is affecting adults as well
- worik 11mo agoI am in New Zealand and we are debating this now I am a dissenter. A ban for children is onerous and how can it be enforced? Who will be punished for infractions? Better a legal code of conduct for platforms that want to raise revenue in your jurisdiction (the important ones, that the state has leverage over). The code should do two things: 1. Prohibit the targeting of individuals below 21 2. Mandate moderation of spaces where young people gather, with resources to enforce it A ban is much more satisfying to the do goobers and much worse for those it is supposed to protect
- jjtheblunt 11mo agohow would you effect what you propose, though, and would such be significantly more difficult to realize than what denmark is proposing?
- worik 11mo agoIt would place the compliance burden on social media companies not on parents Effect it? If you (a social media co.) disobey you cannot collect ad revenue. Advertising on the platform could be banned. Moving the burden off individual parents who often have a lot on their plates.
- Phelinofist 11mo agoGermanys ID has the technical means to allow something like that (age verification without disclosing identity), but knowing the German Gov and their absolute stasis something like this will never happen. It is absolutely necessary to do something like this, because social media has a net negative influence on society. A lot of kids in my daughters class (~7yo's) are consuming brain rot content already. They shout "SIGMA BOY" or "SKIBIDI TOILET" like little retards during lessons. Yeah memes are cool and all, but not at this age. While at it, ban lootboxes.
- VortexLain 11mo agoSeems like an attempt to enforce government ID identification and destroy online anonymity to «protect the children», the very same way it's been done in Britain.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- DecentShoes 11mo agoAnd Australia.
- stackedinserter 11mo agoWhy is it always "ban something"? Do we have solutions other than ban everything?
- intrasight 11mo agoThe other option is to destroy something
- cryptoegorophy 11mo agoi am thankfull for cellphoneless childhood. Wishing same thing upon my children. Worst thing about all of this is the peer pressure, if all your friends have a phone then you become an outcast, so it is a team effort from all parents.
- standardUser 11mo agoAs long as the workarounds the kids come up with aren't more harmful than what's being banned, which is usually the case.
- andsoitis 11mo agoDoes that include YouTube? I couldn’t tell from the article.
- jdthedisciple 11mo agoI grew up without access to social media until I was 17, had my first "smartphone" at 15. I am certain it prevented a lot of harm from me.
- andsoitis 11mo agoIf you trespass (as kid under 15 or guardian of said kid), do you get fined?
- lolive 11mo agoIs chess.com considered a social media?
- bethekidyouwant 11mo agoCrazy how many people are cheering for this absolute nanny state of affairs
- slavik81 11mo agoWhy was 15 chosen? I assume there's evidence that older children and adults are able to use social media responsibly and therefore not harmed?
- casey2 11mo agoLaws don't require foundation let alone scientific evidence. If either were the case laws would rarely be passed. For Denmark I'd assume it's just vibes among the law makers social class. They have a worldview and by God they will impose it.
- mcny 11mo agoReading these comments makes me very happy I decided I should not have children. I think we need fewer people having children but I also think the whole community should help raise these fewer children.
- Ylpertnodi 11mo ago> I also think the whole community should help raise these fewer children. Which whole community? Churches, politicians, cops, and that strange 'uncle'?
- Sleaker 11mo agoWhy don't governments start at the source instead of at the access? I always have questions that go a bit deeper but maybe because I think differently. I understand it can trample on rights, but I guess I like to still ask and have the thought experiment anyway. If things like this are so harmful, and it's recognized why is it okay for a parent to give their child access to it in the first place? Why do kids get to control what they have access to just because parents don't want to parent well, and because they think it'll be a death sentence for their kids social groups? Is it feasible to police parents in that way? Would we even want that?
- zamadatix 11mo agoThink of it similar to alcohol laws. E.g. in the US you don't just want kids to be unable to buy alcohol when their parent is present, you want the point of access to participate in that restriction or it won't work in practice because getting 100% of kids to have good judgement all of the time (or watching them constantly for their whole life) is not realistic. At the same time, many states still have laws allowing alcohol consumption by minors in the presence of their parent because it's really hard to get everyone to agree on a universal binary cutoff with no exception. In practice, the law does help greatly in spite of not being a mathematical proof the minor will no longer get alcohol because of "parenting well" alone and almost all parents are fine with the restrictions, even in places without the flexibility, because they've come to see and agree with the level of harm over the years. Ie. there is a point enough parents agree strongly enough that the common good of children is accepted over the rights of a parent to decide their child's welfare - it's just usually a hogh bar (e.g. how far punishment can go before it turns into abuse, as another example).
- Vriska1 11mo ago[dead]
- bullen 11mo agoConsuming is not the same as producing. They should only ban consuming. (impossible I know, but that hints to the real problem) Kids need to create.
- bdangubic 11mo agomy kid and me when I was a kid and my Mom and Dad when they were kids have been creators. you don’t need a fucking phone or “social” media to be a creator, what nonsense!
- casey2 11mo ago>Denmark's government aims to alienate hundreds of thousands of citizens And people wonder why governments fail. Every time you carve out exceptions you are hollowing out the foundation of your government. Children of the elite' access to social media will remain of course, can't hollow out your true foundation
- deverton 11mo agoYou usually apply bans like this to something that is unhealthy for _everyone_ e.g. smoking. So why isn't the focus on regulating social media to be better? It seems like it's not great for the whole population in its current form.
- defrost 11mo ago"Bans like this" include drinking age, driving age, military service age, consensual sex age, R rated movie age, etc. To which, I assume, the same question applies?
- deverton 11mo agoGenerally those don't have population wide, negative impacts (except maybe drinking). I would compare it more to smoking which is considered a public health issue and we regulated smoking out of the market through a combination of safety regulations, limitations on marketing etc. Age bans were part of that but the ID checking requirements there were substantially less risky due to little no risks of retention.
- defrost 11mo agoYour initial comment may not have been well stated. It asserts that underage bans are usually applied to things that are unhealthy for all. You follow that by stating that provided examples of underage bans are things that are not things with negative impacts on populations. I'd suggest that real world examples exist of adolecsent alcohol induced brain damage, drivers 10-16 having higher rates of accidents causing death and injury, child soldiers having a negative impact on society, industrial scale under age sex in Christian Brother homes having bad outcomes, early exposure to excessive porn being cited as causing brain rot and social malfunction, etc. As for: > we regulated smoking out of the market through a combination of safety regulations, limitations on marketing etc. I'd point to Australia that started down that path with good results, and continued further only to regulate tobacco out of "regular" markets into the embrace of black markets that come with worse problems than the older established markets that "had a code" (established criminals rarely went after family or indiscriminately acted such that bystanders were killed or injured). You raise interesting questions that deserve deeper thought and consideration.
- sega_sai 11mo agoI don't know if that can be implemented, but to me it seems the main problem is the algorithmic feed. I think I would be okay with kids having access to social media, but only if they can't get personalized feed, but can see their friends and maybe specific topics.
- rsolva 11mo agoBanning personalised ads would solve a lot of the underlying incentives that drives the attention grabbing economy today. Increasing the age a few years for when young people are allow to make accounts on social media is not going to make a large difference in the big picture of things, and do not address the core problem that is the collection and abuse of massive amounts of personal data. Upping the age limit a few years is a compromise that big tech can live with. Here in Norway, we've had a 13 year limit for years, but most parents have not cared so far and help their kids register at a much earlier age anyway. This is changing though, as more people realise the downsides of addictive and manipulative apps fighting desperately for our data and attention. It is frustrating to see how unwilling we are to address the economic incentives that causes the biggest harms.
- glaucon 11mo ago> Banning personalised ads I'm in favour of anything that tries to address the appaling effects of social media, but as long as there is advertising that will, surely, be some sort of personalisation. In the past you bought a magazine about, say, gardening, and all the ads were about gardening. The advertisers were betting that most people reading a gardening magazine were interested in gardening products, the ads were, to some degree, personalised. If online 'personalised' ads were banned how would personalised be defined ?
- phire 11mo agoIf the goal is simply to make social media unprofitable, you can just be really brutal and require that all users from a language region visiting a website (or using an App) must be delivered the exact same set of ads. The fact that most advertisers would flock to promoting on smaller special websites/apps (equivalent to your gardening magazine), is exactly the side-effect we want. The shift in spending will hopefully lead to the current "massive social media platform" model will dying out, and boosting smaller independent platforms.
- bradlys 11mo agoWhat’s the benefit of a smaller independent platform? They can be just as problematic… I’m not sure if you’re just fantasizing about the “good old days” of phpbb or something.
- rayiner 11mo agoDenmark seems extremely well governed.
- Nux 11mo agoMake it so! This is making me hopeful and wish to see this implemented in UK (and everywhere) yesterday.. What we can be certain of: there's going to be a hell of "lobbying" against it. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump himself comes out crying how this is undermining USA commercial and business intetests! :)
- jeffchuber 11mo agoi support this
- zrn900 11mo agoSomeone's gotta protect them kids from seeing videos of Gaza... And not only in Denmark... https://israelpalestinenews.org/oracle-tiktok-israel/ https://israelpalestinenews.org/oracle-tiktok-israel/
- urabindotcom 11mo agoIt should be implemented in India too. Biggest consumer market is there I guess.
- ruicraveiro 11mo agoThis should be EU wide, and I was against Chat Control.
- Ylpertnodi 11mo agoEu-person here. You leave my kids alone. I'll decide for them, until they're old enough, or mature enough, to decide for themselves. My spouse agrees. Banning stuff for kids doesn't work, one (of them) will find a way, and once the cat's out of the bag, it's hard to get an elephant in the bag. So far, education, information, and trust (!! - and I most certainly don't trust them), seems to work for us.
- nflekkhnnn 11mo agoSo ”curl news.ycombinator.com” will send you to prison?
- BeFlatXIII 11mo ago…and the kids continue to click the “I am over 18” checkbox and set their birthday to 1998.
- chistev 11mo agoHow do you verify a person's age? Wouldn't that lead to privacy concerns?