4 ms·

People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not tell kids to not go to certai

by vasco 7mo ago

People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not tell kids to not go to certain websites? We still went to the shady part of town and the kids will still go to 4chan but at least we don't need to give away freedoms. Such erosion of freedom for the common person because parents can't have an awkward conversation is irritating.

2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo ago
Do you have children?
- oarsinsync 7mo ago
  Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all controlled substances. We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it. We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase the former. Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children. Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem. And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall problem goes away.
- mapotofu 7mo ago
  I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn’t have an involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding friends to just “go outside and play” wasn’t an option. Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in technical skill and life experience, to know how these things work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don’t.
  - huflungdung 7mo ago
    Haven’t you considered that the fact you were exposed to these things made you who you are today am able to say that with conviction. If you had been shielded from the reality on human extremism you would not.
    - financltravsty 7mo ago
      Vouched, because this was going to be my counterpoint as someone who had the same circumstances as the grandparent. Despite the enormously heinous stuff I've seen on that site, it has made me a better writer, developed my critical thinking skills, and given me a perspective on the world and its people that wouldn't have existed without. It also introduced me to many different things and developed my taste beyond measure. The massive downside, that I suspect the grandparent still wrestles with, is integrating all of depravity of humankind into a coherent world view without falling into cognitive dissonance between the idealized and constructed world with an onslaught of information on the actual reality of it. It's sort of like looking into the Epstein files and having to decide one's reaction to them: - crushed by despair at the state of things leading to nihilism and depression - deciding to ignore it all, and continuing to go on about one's life without integrating it - acceptance, normalization, and corruption - a secret fourth option that reaffirms you, using that news as fuel for whatever ends in the hope you can improve the world even if just a little bit, despite how ugly it is And so on.
      - doright 7mo ago
        Should 4chan or something similarly extreme be recommended reading for children/adolescents to understand the horrors of the world then? I would bet that some young people will be as reflective and independently minded as you were to integrate the material into their experience and be better off for it. Some (like me, because I was thin-skinned) won't and it will stress them out or traumatize them instead. Does that make them lesser human beings for not being capable of bettering themselves from seeing the unfiltered truth on their own? For all the benefit of 4chan, and I do say there is some benefit only after having grown into an adult with better critical thinking skills and years of therapy, it self-selects for a certain type of poster capable of lurking enough, following the norms and having a thick skin. Not everyone will clear that bar and it's unreasonable to think that all young people will turn out like yourself having immersed themselves in it. Some could end up wasting a lot of time baited into petty arguments, or worse.
- gleenn 7mo ago
  Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.
FridayoLeary 7mo ago
I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from the wider society they live in. [1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children with developing minds.
- rocqua 7mo ago
  So the solution is effective parental controls. Government mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is unlikely to be very effective. That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.
  - FridayoLeary 7mo ago
    Internet filters exist. I think we should legislate them, making it mandatory for children, or a similar solution.
    - rocqua 7mo ago
      Nonono. Nothing mandatory. It's a parents choice. The thing to do is help parents enforce their choices. Not forcing choices onto parents.
- ranger_danger 7mo ago
  Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all. We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.
epolanski 7mo ago
I don't remember who said it, but protecting children isn't the end goal, it's tracking adults.

by vasco 7mo ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo ago

Do you have children?

oarsinsync 7mo ago
Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all controlled substances. We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it. We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase the former. Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children. Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem. And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall problem goes away.
mapotofu 7mo ago
I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn’t have an involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding friends to just “go outside and play” wasn’t an option. Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in technical skill and life experience, to know how these things work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don’t.
- huflungdung 7mo ago
  Haven’t you considered that the fact you were exposed to these things made you who you are today am able to say that with conviction. If you had been shielded from the reality on human extremism you would not.
  - financltravsty 7mo ago
    Vouched, because this was going to be my counterpoint as someone who had the same circumstances as the grandparent. Despite the enormously heinous stuff I've seen on that site, it has made me a better writer, developed my critical thinking skills, and given me a perspective on the world and its people that wouldn't have existed without. It also introduced me to many different things and developed my taste beyond measure. The massive downside, that I suspect the grandparent still wrestles with, is integrating all of depravity of humankind into a coherent world view without falling into cognitive dissonance between the idealized and constructed world with an onslaught of information on the actual reality of it. It's sort of like looking into the Epstein files and having to decide one's reaction to them: - crushed by despair at the state of things leading to nihilism and depression - deciding to ignore it all, and continuing to go on about one's life without integrating it - acceptance, normalization, and corruption - a secret fourth option that reaffirms you, using that news as fuel for whatever ends in the hope you can improve the world even if just a little bit, despite how ugly it is And so on.
    - doright 7mo ago
      Should 4chan or something similarly extreme be recommended reading for children/adolescents to understand the horrors of the world then? I would bet that some young people will be as reflective and independently minded as you were to integrate the material into their experience and be better off for it. Some (like me, because I was thin-skinned) won't and it will stress them out or traumatize them instead. Does that make them lesser human beings for not being capable of bettering themselves from seeing the unfiltered truth on their own? For all the benefit of 4chan, and I do say there is some benefit only after having grown into an adult with better critical thinking skills and years of therapy, it self-selects for a certain type of poster capable of lurking enough, following the norms and having a thick skin. Not everyone will clear that bar and it's unreasonable to think that all young people will turn out like yourself having immersed themselves in it. Some could end up wasting a lot of time baited into petty arguments, or worse.
gleenn 7mo ago
Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.

FridayoLeary 7mo ago

I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from the wider society they live in. [1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children with developing minds.

rocqua 7mo ago
So the solution is effective parental controls. Government mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is unlikely to be very effective. That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.
- FridayoLeary 7mo ago
  Internet filters exist. I think we should legislate them, making it mandatory for children, or a similar solution.
  - rocqua 7mo ago
    Nonono. Nothing mandatory. It's a parents choice. The thing to do is help parents enforce their choices. Not forcing choices onto parents.
ranger_danger 7mo ago
Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all. We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.

epolanski 7mo ago

I don't remember who said it, but protecting children isn't the end goal, it's tracking adults.