4 ms·

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 th

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.
- FridayoLeary 7mo ago
  The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm passing no judgement just observing. >We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily discourage children from entering certain places and talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in the real world, there is simply not enough in the internet. I don't say this lightly. I am very firmly against the nanny state, and i feel equally strongly in parental rights. I've made comments in the past against these laws but i feel it's the only way forward. The only question that remains is how to best implement such policies to minimize the inevitable erosion of our privacy. I don't like it, but that's how it is.
  - ranger_danger 7mo ago
    > The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. What evidence is that? Who gets to say what's sufficient? Unless there is a high probability that an alleged lack of control will negatively other people than the family in question, I don't think it should be the government's business to police.
  - vasco 7mo ago
    You seem to be under the impression that having held an opinion and changing it means the new opinion is better by default, but that's not true.
    - FridayoLeary 7mo ago
      In my mind it is. I understand both sides of the debate. I'm not switching one set of beliefs for something i believe is inferior, but i'm still open to hearing arguments why i'm wrong. Nobody has responded with anything more persuasive then "it's not my problem, why are you bothering me".
  - Bender 7mo ago
    This may be true but the laws already exist for parents and legal guardians. To me this reeks of focusing on the wrong aspects to obtain tracking of adults. If parents are not doing their job then prosecute them for it. Or fine them if money is the goal. "~You are a bad parent. Insert $500. Brought to you by Carls Jr."
RiverCrochet 7mo ago
Recently in the U.S. news a parent was convicted of murder because they facilitated making weapons to their child who then committed a school shooting. They didn't give their child weapons and tell them to go do it, they just didn't keep them away. This is a good trend that I hope continues and will actually help prevent school shootings. Parents are responsible for their children. If children are frying their brains due to Internet exposure, similarly it's the parents fault, and they should be held liable for child abuse in the same manner as if they committed other negligence. Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other children inappropriate material because their parents are negligent, the other parents should be able to take those parents to court and recover damages if they can collect evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop pretty quick. > they need help from the wider society they live in. Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference. > I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked with verification nonsense because someone else can't.
wao0uuno 7mo ago
4chan is probably one of the least brain damaging sites kids can go to these days. It has porn and stupid memes, true. But so does google if you turn the safe search off. It's the corporate run sites and services with ai powered recommendation engines that are the most problematic. Infinite scroll sites like reddit or tiktok are what really fucks up your brain. I used to frequent 4chan as a kid back in the day when it was truly a wild corner of the internet and I turned out just fine.
- FridayoLeary 7mo ago
  I agree with you about infinite scroll. I don't know you so i couldn't possibly comment on your other claim...
  - 2postsperday 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - vasco 7mo ago
    And all we know about is you believe the truth is a misspelled cake, so there we go.
- Bender 7mo ago
  Low quality porn at that. Their size limits and board post limits keep it that way. Only /gif/ and one other board even permit sound. That is hateful against the visually impaired.

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.

FridayoLeary 7mo ago
The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm passing no judgement just observing. >We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily discourage children from entering certain places and talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in the real world, there is simply not enough in the internet. I don't say this lightly. I am very firmly against the nanny state, and i feel equally strongly in parental rights. I've made comments in the past against these laws but i feel it's the only way forward. The only question that remains is how to best implement such policies to minimize the inevitable erosion of our privacy. I don't like it, but that's how it is.
- ranger_danger 7mo ago
  > The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. What evidence is that? Who gets to say what's sufficient? Unless there is a high probability that an alleged lack of control will negatively other people than the family in question, I don't think it should be the government's business to police.
- vasco 7mo ago
  You seem to be under the impression that having held an opinion and changing it means the new opinion is better by default, but that's not true.
  - FridayoLeary 7mo ago
    In my mind it is. I understand both sides of the debate. I'm not switching one set of beliefs for something i believe is inferior, but i'm still open to hearing arguments why i'm wrong. Nobody has responded with anything more persuasive then "it's not my problem, why are you bothering me".
- Bender 7mo ago
  This may be true but the laws already exist for parents and legal guardians. To me this reeks of focusing on the wrong aspects to obtain tracking of adults. If parents are not doing their job then prosecute them for it. Or fine them if money is the goal. "~You are a bad parent. Insert $500. Brought to you by Carls Jr."

RiverCrochet 7mo ago

Recently in the U.S. news a parent was convicted of murder because they facilitated making weapons to their child who then committed a school shooting. They didn't give their child weapons and tell them to go do it, they just didn't keep them away. This is a good trend that I hope continues and will actually help prevent school shootings. Parents are responsible for their children. If children are frying their brains due to Internet exposure, similarly it's the parents fault, and they should be held liable for child abuse in the same manner as if they committed other negligence. Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other children inappropriate material because their parents are negligent, the other parents should be able to take those parents to court and recover damages if they can collect evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop pretty quick. > they need help from the wider society they live in. Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference. > I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked with verification nonsense because someone else can't.

wao0uuno 7mo ago

4chan is probably one of the least brain damaging sites kids can go to these days. It has porn and stupid memes, true. But so does google if you turn the safe search off. It's the corporate run sites and services with ai powered recommendation engines that are the most problematic. Infinite scroll sites like reddit or tiktok are what really fucks up your brain. I used to frequent 4chan as a kid back in the day when it was truly a wild corner of the internet and I turned out just fine.

FridayoLeary 7mo ago
I agree with you about infinite scroll. I don't know you so i couldn't possibly comment on your other claim...
- 2postsperday 7mo ago
  [dead]
- vasco 7mo ago
  And all we know about is you believe the truth is a misspelled cake, so there we go.
Bender 7mo ago
Low quality porn at that. Their size limits and board post limits keep it that way. Only /gif/ and one other board even permit sound. That is hateful against the visually impaired.