4 ms·

So you're implying alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to children? (Not to mention all the other consent age laws.) That said, VPN is a national security i

So you're implying alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to children? (Not to mention all the other consent age laws.) That said, VPN is a national security issue, children are only a pretext.

hnlmorg 5mo ago
Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables. Whether that was porno mags, alcohol or cigarettes. They’d just get an older sibling, or stranger to buy it. Or they’d have a fake ID. Or they’d just steal it from a family member. But you know which kids did this the least? It was the ones where their parents / guardians took their responsibilities as a guardian properly.
- palata 5mo ago
  > Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. > But you know which kids did this the least? Source?
  - hnlmorg 5mo ago
    > Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. Why do people on HN always need to look at things as a Boolean state? It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. Things don’t need to be “all or nothing” ;) > Source? I grew up pre-WWW. Literally lived and breathed the points I’m making. But don’t just take my word on this. Ask anyone of a certain age and they’ll tell you the same: they either tried cigarettes or knew lots of kids in school who smoked under the age of 16. They had access to alcohol under the age of 18. And pornographic content was easy to get hold of under the age of 18. The age at which they gained access and the frequency of the usage depended greatly on their upbringing.
    - palata 5mo ago
      > It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. I totally agree. That can be used as an argument in favour of age verification, though.
      - hnlmorg 5mo ago
        Sure, if you ignore the other part of my comment where I said parents should be responsible for the upbringing of their own children.
        palata 5mo ago
        I disagree with that part. Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do. If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from everything they share between each other, it's not important to socialise, you can make friends when you are old". The problem with social media is that it's not okay for one kid to be disconnected. What we want as a society is to prevent them all, so that they are all in the same situation.
        hnlmorg 5mo ago
        Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. Our kids have access to social media, but we also know what they have access to because we check their phones periodically. This is a far better approach than an “all or nothing” approach because we are giving the kids the freedom to learn how to use these tools maturely. But without removing any safety nets for if/when our kids (or any other kids in their social circles) fail to use such tools responsibly. That’s called “parenting”. Censoring access to tools, either via government regulations or over zealous parenting, doesn’t teach children anything. Whereas allowing kids to learn to use the tools but being around to support and help them grow when mistakes are made, is precisely what responsible parents should be doing. And that’s the same approach you should take with learning anything as a child. You give them guidance and allow them to make mistakes but be there to support them. Kids don’t learn to ride a bike from telling them “bikes are dangerous” then suddenly when they’re 16 handing them a bike and telling them to ride it to colleague. So why are you treating social media like that?
esseph 5mo ago
> VPN is a national security issue :/
sensanaty 5mo ago
What does national security even mean anymore? People are using this term for basically everything these days, as if saying "national security" is somehow a justification on its own. What "national security" implications are there with VPNs?
- esseph 5mo ago
  > What "national security" implications are there with VPNs? Clearly, Big Government can't see what you or your company are doing and that's a problem for them.
- Nasrudith 5mo ago
  "National security" has long been their favorite cheat code for 'do what I say, you can't question it, damn it!'. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on the old man who cried national security.
- otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
  > What "national security" implications are there with VPNs? "Foreign agents" communicating in an untraceable way. All internet communication is wiretapped by default unless you use a VPN to a rival jurisdiction. (Where it's also wiretapped, but presumably the interplay of state actor interests comes up in the "foreign agent"'s favor.)
ykonstant 5mo ago
"So you're implying..." No.

So you're implying alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to children? (Not to mention all the other consent age laws.) That said, VPN is a national security issue, children are only a pretext.

hnlmorg 5mo ago

Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables. Whether that was porno mags, alcohol or cigarettes. They’d just get an older sibling, or stranger to buy it. Or they’d have a fake ID. Or they’d just steal it from a family member. But you know which kids did this the least? It was the ones where their parents / guardians took their responsibilities as a guardian properly.

palata 5mo ago
> Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. > But you know which kids did this the least? Source?
- hnlmorg 5mo ago
  > Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. Why do people on HN always need to look at things as a Boolean state? It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. Things don’t need to be “all or nothing” ;) > Source? I grew up pre-WWW. Literally lived and breathed the points I’m making. But don’t just take my word on this. Ask anyone of a certain age and they’ll tell you the same: they either tried cigarettes or knew lots of kids in school who smoked under the age of 16. They had access to alcohol under the age of 18. And pornographic content was easy to get hold of under the age of 18. The age at which they gained access and the frequency of the usage depended greatly on their upbringing.
  - palata 5mo ago
    > It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. I totally agree. That can be used as an argument in favour of age verification, though.
    - hnlmorg 5mo ago
      Sure, if you ignore the other part of my comment where I said parents should be responsible for the upbringing of their own children.
      - palata 5mo ago
        I disagree with that part. Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do. If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from everything they share between each other, it's not important to socialise, you can make friends when you are old". The problem with social media is that it's not okay for one kid to be disconnected. What we want as a society is to prevent them all, so that they are all in the same situation.
        hnlmorg 5mo ago
        Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. Our kids have access to social media, but we also know what they have access to because we check their phones periodically. This is a far better approach than an “all or nothing” approach because we are giving the kids the freedom to learn how to use these tools maturely. But without removing any safety nets for if/when our kids (or any other kids in their social circles) fail to use such tools responsibly. That’s called “parenting”. Censoring access to tools, either via government regulations or over zealous parenting, doesn’t teach children anything. Whereas allowing kids to learn to use the tools but being around to support and help them grow when mistakes are made, is precisely what responsible parents should be doing. And that’s the same approach you should take with learning anything as a child. You give them guidance and allow them to make mistakes but be there to support them. Kids don’t learn to ride a bike from telling them “bikes are dangerous” then suddenly when they’re 16 handing them a bike and telling them to ride it to colleague. So why are you treating social media like that?

esseph 5mo ago

> VPN is a national security issue :/

sensanaty 5mo ago

What does national security even mean anymore? People are using this term for basically everything these days, as if saying "national security" is somehow a justification on its own. What "national security" implications are there with VPNs?

esseph 5mo ago
> What "national security" implications are there with VPNs? Clearly, Big Government can't see what you or your company are doing and that's a problem for them.
Nasrudith 5mo ago
"National security" has long been their favorite cheat code for 'do what I say, you can't question it, damn it!'. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on the old man who cried national security.
otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
> What "national security" implications are there with VPNs? "Foreign agents" communicating in an untraceable way. All internet communication is wiretapped by default unless you use a VPN to a rival jurisdiction. (Where it's also wiretapped, but presumably the interplay of state actor interests comes up in the "foreign agent"'s favor.)

ykonstant 5mo ago

"So you're implying..." No.