3 ms·

> 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

by hnlmorg 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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?
      - palata 6mo ago
        > Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient. I am not, AT ALL, saying that we should make bikes illegal to kids. But some things make sense to me: we should not sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids. "Go ahead my son, you're 13, you should make your own mistakes: try smoking for a month like your friends, and then I'll explain to you why it is a bad idea" is not how I apprehend "parenting". I am actually saying that it is nuanced, and that it is difficult to know where to put the limit. Should cocaine be allowed to kids? Cannabis? Cigarettes? Social media? Bikes? Chocolate? > So why are you treating social media like that? Maybe you think that social media are like bikes, and that's your right. I think they are closer to drugs. Maybe you think everything should be legal (drugs, killing, ...) and that "parenting" is the solution to all, I don't. Like cigarettes, the message is "you should never do it, but when you'll get older it will be your choice to do that stupid shit". That is obviously not how I treat bikes.
        hnlmorg 6mo ago

by hnlmorg 6mo ago

palata 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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?
    - palata 6mo ago
      > Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient. I am not, AT ALL, saying that we should make bikes illegal to kids. But some things make sense to me: we should not sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids. "Go ahead my son, you're 13, you should make your own mistakes: try smoking for a month like your friends, and then I'll explain to you why it is a bad idea" is not how I apprehend "parenting". I am actually saying that it is nuanced, and that it is difficult to know where to put the limit. Should cocaine be allowed to kids? Cannabis? Cigarettes? Social media? Bikes? Chocolate? > So why are you treating social media like that? Maybe you think that social media are like bikes, and that's your right. I think they are closer to drugs. Maybe you think everything should be legal (drugs, killing, ...) and that "parenting" is the solution to all, I don't. Like cigarettes, the message is "you should never do it, but when you'll get older it will be your choice to do that stupid shit". That is obviously not how I treat bikes.
      - hnlmorg 6mo ago