5 ms·

I'm against any kind of age verification legislation, but this is a really bad argument. It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that do

I'm against any kind of age verification legislation, but this is a really bad argument. It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." In theory, one could implement age verification by negligent parent imprisonment, in practice, I don't think that would work, and definitely not in all cases. If we accept the premise that children having unfettered access to the internet is a bad thing (which, again, I don't think we should), there have to be multiple layers to it. Punishment is one, increasing friction and "making honest people honest" is another.

throwthrowuknow 5mo ago
These systems won’t work any better than identification requirements for alcohol and tobacco or anything else. Maybe you didn’t know anyone who drank or smoked when you were a teenager but they are pretty widespread even when parents aren’t negligent. Systems like the proposed ones will be even easier for kids to find a way around. I’m somewhat in favour of these foolish attempts at control because they always drive innovation in technology to circumvent them and adoption of that technology creating a thriving underground scene. Content piracy and alternative platforms could use a resurgence and this is just the thing to get it jumpstarted.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  I agree that the recent craze about internet ID checks are foolish but your example falls on its face. ID checks to purchase goods at a physical location are actually quite effective. They don't achieve perfect compliance but that's not a fatal flaw (or even necessarily any flaw at all despite what people might say).
  - throwthrowuknow 5mo ago
    Disagree completely, they were easily bypassed and I think they’re probably more easily bypassed today.
pretzel5297 5mo ago
We don't hold parents responsible for most neglect. Why is this special?
- amazingamazing 5mo ago
  Does UK not have equivalent to CPS?
  - zimpenfish 5mo ago
    We do - https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system - but, at least in England, as with most governmental functions, it's been slashed to near death by years of austerity and "small government" lunacy.
    - philipallstar 5mo ago
      It's not lunacy. It's the parents' child, not the state's.
      - zimpenfish 5mo ago
        > It's the parents' child, not the state's. And who should look out for the child's interests if the parents can't or won't?
        philipallstar 5mo ago
        Who decides what the child's interests are?
- SeanDav 5mo ago
  I would hardly define allowing your child access to the internet as neglect. Like anything else, like crossing the street for example, there are dangers that can be mitigated against by education by parents and schools. The government is vastly overreaching in this and quite frankly if one argues that this is a good thing, then where to draw the line? Will we want to see government legislation for every possible permutation of potentially harmful behaviours or consequences. Sorry Johnny can't come out to play because I have not yet bought the latest government-legislated knee guard armour to prevent a graze, and BTW I notice that you have not renewed the foam coating on your sidewalk, if Johnny trips and falls there...
pjmlp 5mo ago
Since it is fashionable tiktok subject nowadays, you do it like genx and boomers. We turned out alright.
goalieca 5mo ago
> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Define “properly” and how often do the self-righteous themselves cause harm. I see a strong desire for people to want to “control” all outcomes on everything and have everyone in the world think and say and act as they want.
- iamnothere 5mo ago
  Yes but you see, my views are the correct ones and should be the only allowable views. Other people who want this are controlling and their evil views are simply wrong. If you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person.
iamnothere 5mo ago
“Properly” is the choice of the parent, except in some narrow cases we’ve defined culturally. The last thing we need is society deciding in detail how children should be raised. CPS horror stories are bad enough as it is.
- soco 5mo ago
  Nevertheless as a society we do have laws protecting the children, also the adults, on the streets. Why not having or applying laws for the online? Why should we expect or ask that the internet be magically better handled by the parents alone?
  - philipallstar 5mo ago
    Because online is global, and you can't have effective local laws against a global system. Parents don't need magic; they just need to watch what their kids use devices for, and keep the devices in public areas of the house. The main thing the state can do is stop requiring kids to have portable internet-connected devices for state schooling.
    - jonhohle 5mo ago
      You are obviously not a parent. I lock down devices, lock down my network, then the public school gives my kid a laptop with access to nearly everything I’ve tried to filter. Even if I can successfully monitor it at home, the device is in their possession and out of my control as a parent for 6-8 hours a day. The government is literally bypassing our family rules and my ability to protect my children in the way I see fit. For 90% of kids, that’s not going to be an issue and everyone can feel like they’re such a great parent. But for another group of kids, they absolutely cannot handle it and have not developed the executive function to be able to manage access to everything the Internet offers. In the past we understood this as a society. Broadcasters on public airwaves had standards for what was appropriate. We’ve completely thrown those out in one generation and decided gambling, porn, extremely violence, social and emotional grooming and abuse, and lots more are all OK to give children access to, unchecked and with limited education. It’s really kind of sick.
Xelbair 5mo ago
>It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Like with normal cases - have court go over this. But decision if any form of age lock should be implemented or not is up to parents. You cannot just shift argument to "you HAVE to restrict children from internet or else!"
- pocksuppet 5mo ago
  What about the California version, where the government says you HAVE to offer parents the choice to restrict their children from the internet or not? That seems like a pretty reasonable middle ground, and solves the actual problems without denying privacy.
SeanDav 5mo ago
It has always been the responsibility of parents to raise their children "properly" (whatever that means). What is special about internet access that now requires the government to legislate for it, and as a side-effect, greatly reduce the privacy of the rest of the population. This is without even addressing the argument that these measures may even make the privacy situation for children worse.
heresie-dabord 5mo ago
> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Nor can it, because it takes a village to raise a human being. And in this (global) village, we have determined that we will monetise everything... and for the victims, there's thoughts and prayers. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers
- verisimi 5mo ago
  Is your child my child? Should I involve myself in how you choose to bring up the child, if you espouse ideas I disagree with?
  - cowpig 5mo ago
    We should be involving our community members more in the exchange of ideas, and digital sources of information quite a bit less.
    - verisimi 5mo ago
      Why? I certainly don't think as highly of my community as you seem to. But really, what is the value you personally get from opening up your life to your community?
  - heresie-dabord 5mo ago
    It depends on the harm that you witness. Your question does imply your awareness that parents are not/may not be intellectually (or even morally) competent. In no Western society that I can name are parents omnipotent owners of their children. Parents may even lose custody of their children. If you know that parents are doing physical harm to children, you have a social obligation to try to do something for those children. Even though we may turn a blind eye, we do have a social obligation to all children. Human anthropological history reflects this. Although intellectual harm tends to be seen as sunken cost (and possibly "correctable"), social harm has intolerable consequences.
sieabahlpark 5mo ago
[dead]

throwthrowuknow 5mo ago

These systems won’t work any better than identification requirements for alcohol and tobacco or anything else. Maybe you didn’t know anyone who drank or smoked when you were a teenager but they are pretty widespread even when parents aren’t negligent. Systems like the proposed ones will be even easier for kids to find a way around. I’m somewhat in favour of these foolish attempts at control because they always drive innovation in technology to circumvent them and adoption of that technology creating a thriving underground scene. Content piracy and alternative platforms could use a resurgence and this is just the thing to get it jumpstarted.

fc417fc802 5mo ago
I agree that the recent craze about internet ID checks are foolish but your example falls on its face. ID checks to purchase goods at a physical location are actually quite effective. They don't achieve perfect compliance but that's not a fatal flaw (or even necessarily any flaw at all despite what people might say).
- throwthrowuknow 5mo ago
  Disagree completely, they were easily bypassed and I think they’re probably more easily bypassed today.

pretzel5297 5mo ago

We don't hold parents responsible for most neglect. Why is this special?

amazingamazing 5mo ago
Does UK not have equivalent to CPS?
- zimpenfish 5mo ago
  We do - https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system - but, at least in England, as with most governmental functions, it's been slashed to near death by years of austerity and "small government" lunacy.
  - philipallstar 5mo ago
    It's not lunacy. It's the parents' child, not the state's.
    - zimpenfish 5mo ago
      > It's the parents' child, not the state's. And who should look out for the child's interests if the parents can't or won't?
      - philipallstar 5mo ago
        Who decides what the child's interests are?
SeanDav 5mo ago
I would hardly define allowing your child access to the internet as neglect. Like anything else, like crossing the street for example, there are dangers that can be mitigated against by education by parents and schools. The government is vastly overreaching in this and quite frankly if one argues that this is a good thing, then where to draw the line? Will we want to see government legislation for every possible permutation of potentially harmful behaviours or consequences. Sorry Johnny can't come out to play because I have not yet bought the latest government-legislated knee guard armour to prevent a graze, and BTW I notice that you have not renewed the foam coating on your sidewalk, if Johnny trips and falls there...

pjmlp 5mo ago

Since it is fashionable tiktok subject nowadays, you do it like genx and boomers. We turned out alright.

goalieca 5mo ago

> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Define “properly” and how often do the self-righteous themselves cause harm. I see a strong desire for people to want to “control” all outcomes on everything and have everyone in the world think and say and act as they want.

iamnothere 5mo ago
Yes but you see, my views are the correct ones and should be the only allowable views. Other people who want this are controlling and their evil views are simply wrong. If you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person.

iamnothere 5mo ago

“Properly” is the choice of the parent, except in some narrow cases we’ve defined culturally. The last thing we need is society deciding in detail how children should be raised. CPS horror stories are bad enough as it is.

soco 5mo ago
Nevertheless as a society we do have laws protecting the children, also the adults, on the streets. Why not having or applying laws for the online? Why should we expect or ask that the internet be magically better handled by the parents alone?
- philipallstar 5mo ago
  Because online is global, and you can't have effective local laws against a global system. Parents don't need magic; they just need to watch what their kids use devices for, and keep the devices in public areas of the house. The main thing the state can do is stop requiring kids to have portable internet-connected devices for state schooling.
  - jonhohle 5mo ago
    You are obviously not a parent. I lock down devices, lock down my network, then the public school gives my kid a laptop with access to nearly everything I’ve tried to filter. Even if I can successfully monitor it at home, the device is in their possession and out of my control as a parent for 6-8 hours a day. The government is literally bypassing our family rules and my ability to protect my children in the way I see fit. For 90% of kids, that’s not going to be an issue and everyone can feel like they’re such a great parent. But for another group of kids, they absolutely cannot handle it and have not developed the executive function to be able to manage access to everything the Internet offers. In the past we understood this as a society. Broadcasters on public airwaves had standards for what was appropriate. We’ve completely thrown those out in one generation and decided gambling, porn, extremely violence, social and emotional grooming and abuse, and lots more are all OK to give children access to, unchecked and with limited education. It’s really kind of sick.

Xelbair 5mo ago

>It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Like with normal cases - have court go over this. But decision if any form of age lock should be implemented or not is up to parents. You cannot just shift argument to "you HAVE to restrict children from internet or else!"

pocksuppet 5mo ago
What about the California version, where the government says you HAVE to offer parents the choice to restrict their children from the internet or not? That seems like a pretty reasonable middle ground, and solves the actual problems without denying privacy.

SeanDav 5mo ago

It has always been the responsibility of parents to raise their children "properly" (whatever that means). What is special about internet access that now requires the government to legislate for it, and as a side-effect, greatly reduce the privacy of the rest of the population. This is without even addressing the argument that these measures may even make the privacy situation for children worse.

heresie-dabord 5mo ago

> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Nor can it, because it takes a village to raise a human being. And in this (global) village, we have determined that we will monetise everything... and for the victims, there's thoughts and prayers. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers

verisimi 5mo ago
Is your child my child? Should I involve myself in how you choose to bring up the child, if you espouse ideas I disagree with?
- cowpig 5mo ago
  We should be involving our community members more in the exchange of ideas, and digital sources of information quite a bit less.
  - verisimi 5mo ago
    Why? I certainly don't think as highly of my community as you seem to. But really, what is the value you personally get from opening up your life to your community?
- heresie-dabord 5mo ago
  It depends on the harm that you witness. Your question does imply your awareness that parents are not/may not be intellectually (or even morally) competent. In no Western society that I can name are parents omnipotent owners of their children. Parents may even lose custody of their children. If you know that parents are doing physical harm to children, you have a social obligation to try to do something for those children. Even though we may turn a blind eye, we do have a social obligation to all children. Human anthropological history reflects this. Although intellectual harm tends to be seen as sunken cost (and possibly "correctable"), social harm has intolerable consequences.

sieabahlpark 5mo ago

[dead]