5 ms·

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could be

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could become an adult failure. The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.

mghackerlady 5mo ago
Also, different kids mature at different rates. I wouldn't give a shit about my kid watching, say, an R rated movie if I understand they'll be able to handle it and understand it's fiction. If I had a 14 or 15 year old and they had a healthy understanding of sex and the dangers of porn, I wouldn't give a shit if they managed to see some poorly drawn tits online. Why? Because if you didn't intentionally seek out lewd content as a teenager you're either very very religious or a liar
- samplifier 5mo ago
  Duke Nukem 3D had bouncy pixels that made it "tickle down there". Also: monochrome women "eating bananas".
DontBreakAlex 5mo ago
I wish I could upvote this comment harder. I started having unsupervised internet access (with the family computer in the living room) when I was 8. I'm a functional and successful adult because I trusted my parents. When my mother forbade me from registering on online forums I complied. When I read "fellation" in some minecraft chat (albeit somewhat later) I asked my mom what it was and understood that "sex" was something for the grown-ups and that I shouldn't worry about it. All because I would never even conceive that my parents wouldn't do what's best for me, and was unconditionally loved (even though I didn't know about this concept). I would rather have parenting licenses than online age verification
- abustamam 5mo ago
  Yeah I'm not sure why the govt or any other 3rd party needs to get involved. If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn. If I don't trust my kids to listen to me then I will install an open source monitoring software and educate them on trust. Letting the govt dictate what is age restricted is an easy way for the govt to control speech and narrative. For example, children's books that feature LGBT characters are being reclassified as adult [1], thus requiring additional verification. If I do/don't want my kids to read LGBT books, it's my decision. The govt should not dictate that. What else will the govt reclassify? Anything involving people of color? [1] https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data
  - techblueberry 5mo ago
    “If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn“ I can’t tell if this is a joke, is this a joke?
    - abustamam 5mo ago
      No? I guess I missed a word ("educate them on the dangers of porn" perhaps?) but I don't see how the omission makes a huge difference.
      - techblueberry 5mo ago
        I just love the idea that the solution to kids not doing what you want them to is telling them not to do a thing. It’s so optimistic.
        abustamam 5mo ago
        Not sure if this is sarcastic but that's exactly how drug education works in the US. Sure it's optimistic but almost everything about raising kids is optimistic.
furyofantares 5mo ago
I keep thinking we can't fight age verification by just saying "no" to it, and have to offer an alterative. Maybe we need to turn it on its head, point out that if we want legislation to help out with this, we could choose legislation that gives power to parents. Age verification laws put the power directly into the law itself, they're a blanket solution that gives all the power to legislators and that prevents parents from making decisions about what's appropriate for their kids and what isn't. If the market isn't delivering the level of parental controls people want, then sure, maybe legislation is needed. But it should be legislation that improves parental such that parents can make decisions about what's appropriate for their children.
- abustamam 5mo ago
  Yeah I agree. Let me decide what's appropriate for my kids. Like for video games or movies... A game rated M for foul language and nothing else might be OK for my adolescent kid. A game rated M for excessive nudity and sex probably not.
- themafia 5mo ago
  > and have to offer an alterative. It's called "software." It already just exists. It's sold for the purposes of locking devices down so they're safer for children to use. > point out that if we want legislation to help out with this Make this software tax deductible. The end.
abernard1 5mo ago
> THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. The government does raise children. It's called the public school system.
HerbManic 5mo ago
As much as this is true, no disagreement, there is the issue that we are all fighting against systems that have billion of dollars of studies and A/B testing designed to completely subvert said parenting abilities. It was difficult enough back 20 years ago when you have TV advertising that just shot gun out the messaging in the hope of landing a target, now it is algorithmically targeted. Even if you can keep this stuff under control in the home, outside of the home these influences can still bleed in from others. But having the government use mandatory age restrictions, that is a wild over correction. They shouldn't be parenting kids in the same way corporations shouldn't be doing it either. Alas we are walking into the wild contradictions of libertarian thinking and authoritarianism. Liberal companies have no checks and balances, authoritarian governments take peoples freedoms in the name of "safety". The deeper questing is to all of these technologies that have have imbalanced positive and negative outcomes. If you cannot balance it, you either have the worst outcomes happen or you end up with an authoritarian reflex to control the technology and those that use it. Rarely do we take the middle path, that being government control of the businesses. That is seen as touching the political third rail, but that instinct is now by design. You can see the thinking that goes, the best solution was to never invent it to begin with, but that is just wishful stuff that doesn't really contribute. I have no solutions and barely any responses other than, this is some predicament we find ourselves in.
negura 5mo ago
but no parent actually keeps the government out of it. don't you go to the police when your child is harmed?
denkmoon 5mo ago
Western society, for better or worse, is set up such that parents need to resume work as soon as possible. Saying the government has no responsibility in child rearing ignores the economic reality of parents.
- bdangubic 5mo ago
  By western you mean America? Cause this is true only in America.
  - gib444 5mo ago
    It's also true in the UK. High housing costs, high living costs and low wages means two parents need to work as much as possible.
    - bdangubic 5mo ago
      what’s the maternity leave situation in UK?
      - gib444 5mo ago
        Statutory Maternity Pay can be paid for up to 39 weeks. The first 6 weeks: 90% of average weekly earnings The remaining 33 weeks: £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) So not much after the first 6 weeks Some data for non-statuary maternity pay https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/maternity-policies-typically-provide-195-weeks-pay https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/mat... Later From the people I know, the financial pressure seems to build around 6 months as their employer's maternity pay is fading into the distance, but they struggle on a bit longer. I admit there may be different definitions of "as soon as possible" between the USA and other countries. Most people here would love to be able to afford at least 1 year if not more.
        bdangubic 5mo ago
        so we can’t really compare US (zero), with this, yes? not saying going to work after XX weeks is great either :(
illiac786 5mo ago
I do agree fundamentally, but you are making a lot of assumptions about the parents here. Many do not have parents able to do this. Do they not deserve some protection against such content? Blaming the parents for their failures is not going to help the kids. That being said the current approach really has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with tracking us.
- cantbudgeit 5mo ago
  [flagged]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
Fervicus 5mo ago
This points get brought up in every thread about this topic, and although I agree with it completely, I feel it's the wrong point to make. They don't want to raise our children. Caring about the children is just pretense. The goal is surveillance. So this is a moot point, really.
tekknik 5mo ago
California and a slew of other states deemed it necessary to step in and take over for parents with transgender kids didn’t they? even threatening to take a child from their parents should they refuse gender dysphoria treatments. it seems to me the left already opened this can of worms.
doright 5mo ago
I wish I could upvote this more. What's never discussed is what would motivate a kid to doomscroll the unsupervised internet, often it's unaddressed stress or trauma. From experience, a turbulent childhood can cause lifelong issues that require sustained motivation on the part of the adult child to undo. If one or both of your parents shut down your emotions all throughout your childhood, you have will likely have far bigger issues than anything an identity check can solve.

mghackerlady 5mo ago

Also, different kids mature at different rates. I wouldn't give a shit about my kid watching, say, an R rated movie if I understand they'll be able to handle it and understand it's fiction. If I had a 14 or 15 year old and they had a healthy understanding of sex and the dangers of porn, I wouldn't give a shit if they managed to see some poorly drawn tits online. Why? Because if you didn't intentionally seek out lewd content as a teenager you're either very very religious or a liar

samplifier 5mo ago
Duke Nukem 3D had bouncy pixels that made it "tickle down there". Also: monochrome women "eating bananas".

DontBreakAlex 5mo ago

I wish I could upvote this comment harder. I started having unsupervised internet access (with the family computer in the living room) when I was 8. I'm a functional and successful adult because I trusted my parents. When my mother forbade me from registering on online forums I complied. When I read "fellation" in some minecraft chat (albeit somewhat later) I asked my mom what it was and understood that "sex" was something for the grown-ups and that I shouldn't worry about it. All because I would never even conceive that my parents wouldn't do what's best for me, and was unconditionally loved (even though I didn't know about this concept). I would rather have parenting licenses than online age verification

abustamam 5mo ago
Yeah I'm not sure why the govt or any other 3rd party needs to get involved. If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn. If I don't trust my kids to listen to me then I will install an open source monitoring software and educate them on trust. Letting the govt dictate what is age restricted is an easy way for the govt to control speech and narrative. For example, children's books that feature LGBT characters are being reclassified as adult [1], thus requiring additional verification. If I do/don't want my kids to read LGBT books, it's my decision. The govt should not dictate that. What else will the govt reclassify? Anything involving people of color? [1] https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data
- techblueberry 5mo ago
  “If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn“ I can’t tell if this is a joke, is this a joke?
  - abustamam 5mo ago
    No? I guess I missed a word ("educate them on the dangers of porn" perhaps?) but I don't see how the omission makes a huge difference.
    - techblueberry 5mo ago
      I just love the idea that the solution to kids not doing what you want them to is telling them not to do a thing. It’s so optimistic.
      - abustamam 5mo ago
        Not sure if this is sarcastic but that's exactly how drug education works in the US. Sure it's optimistic but almost everything about raising kids is optimistic.

furyofantares 5mo ago

I keep thinking we can't fight age verification by just saying "no" to it, and have to offer an alterative. Maybe we need to turn it on its head, point out that if we want legislation to help out with this, we could choose legislation that gives power to parents. Age verification laws put the power directly into the law itself, they're a blanket solution that gives all the power to legislators and that prevents parents from making decisions about what's appropriate for their kids and what isn't. If the market isn't delivering the level of parental controls people want, then sure, maybe legislation is needed. But it should be legislation that improves parental such that parents can make decisions about what's appropriate for their children.

abustamam 5mo ago
Yeah I agree. Let me decide what's appropriate for my kids. Like for video games or movies... A game rated M for foul language and nothing else might be OK for my adolescent kid. A game rated M for excessive nudity and sex probably not.
themafia 5mo ago
> and have to offer an alterative. It's called "software." It already just exists. It's sold for the purposes of locking devices down so they're safer for children to use. > point out that if we want legislation to help out with this Make this software tax deductible. The end.

abernard1 5mo ago

> THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. The government does raise children. It's called the public school system.

HerbManic 5mo ago

As much as this is true, no disagreement, there is the issue that we are all fighting against systems that have billion of dollars of studies and A/B testing designed to completely subvert said parenting abilities. It was difficult enough back 20 years ago when you have TV advertising that just shot gun out the messaging in the hope of landing a target, now it is algorithmically targeted. Even if you can keep this stuff under control in the home, outside of the home these influences can still bleed in from others. But having the government use mandatory age restrictions, that is a wild over correction. They shouldn't be parenting kids in the same way corporations shouldn't be doing it either. Alas we are walking into the wild contradictions of libertarian thinking and authoritarianism. Liberal companies have no checks and balances, authoritarian governments take peoples freedoms in the name of "safety". The deeper questing is to all of these technologies that have have imbalanced positive and negative outcomes. If you cannot balance it, you either have the worst outcomes happen or you end up with an authoritarian reflex to control the technology and those that use it. Rarely do we take the middle path, that being government control of the businesses. That is seen as touching the political third rail, but that instinct is now by design. You can see the thinking that goes, the best solution was to never invent it to begin with, but that is just wishful stuff that doesn't really contribute. I have no solutions and barely any responses other than, this is some predicament we find ourselves in.

negura 5mo ago

but no parent actually keeps the government out of it. don't you go to the police when your child is harmed?

denkmoon 5mo ago

Western society, for better or worse, is set up such that parents need to resume work as soon as possible. Saying the government has no responsibility in child rearing ignores the economic reality of parents.

bdangubic 5mo ago
By western you mean America? Cause this is true only in America.
- gib444 5mo ago
  It's also true in the UK. High housing costs, high living costs and low wages means two parents need to work as much as possible.
  - bdangubic 5mo ago
    what’s the maternity leave situation in UK?
    - gib444 5mo ago
      Statutory Maternity Pay can be paid for up to 39 weeks. The first 6 weeks: 90% of average weekly earnings The remaining 33 weeks: £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) So not much after the first 6 weeks Some data for non-statuary maternity pay https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/maternity-policies-typically-provide-195-weeks-pay https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/mat... Later From the people I know, the financial pressure seems to build around 6 months as their employer's maternity pay is fading into the distance, but they struggle on a bit longer. I admit there may be different definitions of "as soon as possible" between the USA and other countries. Most people here would love to be able to afford at least 1 year if not more.
      - bdangubic 5mo ago
        so we can’t really compare US (zero), with this, yes? not saying going to work after XX weeks is great either :(

illiac786 5mo ago

I do agree fundamentally, but you are making a lot of assumptions about the parents here. Many do not have parents able to do this. Do they not deserve some protection against such content? Blaming the parents for their failures is not going to help the kids. That being said the current approach really has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with tracking us.

cantbudgeit 5mo ago
[flagged]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

Fervicus 5mo ago

This points get brought up in every thread about this topic, and although I agree with it completely, I feel it's the wrong point to make. They don't want to raise our children. Caring about the children is just pretense. The goal is surveillance. So this is a moot point, really.

tekknik 5mo ago

California and a slew of other states deemed it necessary to step in and take over for parents with transgender kids didn’t they? even threatening to take a child from their parents should they refuse gender dysphoria treatments. it seems to me the left already opened this can of worms.

doright 5mo ago

I wish I could upvote this more. What's never discussed is what would motivate a kid to doomscroll the unsupervised internet, often it's unaddressed stress or trauma. From experience, a turbulent childhood can cause lifelong issues that require sustained motivation on the part of the adult child to undo. If one or both of your parents shut down your emotions all throughout your childhood, you have will likely have far bigger issues than anything an identity check can solve.