4 ms·
I still don't understand why the simplest approach isn't used: ban kids from using the Internet unsupervised. There's really no good reason why a six year old s
by OroPla 1mo ago
I still don't understand why the simplest approach isn't used: ban kids from using the Internet unsupervised. There's really no good reason why a six year old should have internet access.
- padjo 1mo agoThe argument is that there are parents who are too stupid/lazy to enable parental controls on kids devices and society has a duty to protect kids even if their parents are negligent. Also, kids interact with other kids, so even if you do everything right your kids wind up with access/peer pressure through the kids with bad parents. I dunno if I agree but I think that's the thrust of it.
- OroPla 1mo agoThere are systems in place dealing with negligent parents. They could be better, but they exist. If kids were banned, there couldn't be that much peer pressure. Think about it, how many kids will get a gun just because some of the kids have access to guns through their negligent parents? If it's banned the path to getting it won't be straightforward.
- padjo 1mo agoWell I guess this begs the question how do you implement this ban without checking ids?
- OroPla 1mo agoYour ISP knows this already, doesn't it? Internet cafés can ask for ID. Sure, your parents can give you access, but your parents could also give you booze, porn and guns if they feel so inclined.
- m4ck_ 1mo agoI feel like if we can throw parents in jail for allowing their children to walk unsupervised, we can probably toss them in prison for giving them unrestricted access to the internet.
- john_strinlai 1mo agoit's pretty easy to enforce that for 6 year olds. not as easy for 12 year olds.
- OroPla 1mo agoI don't think I care as much for a twelve year old seeing age inappropriate things, as that is what I was seeking out and enjoying at that age. And that was before Internet was a thing people had in their homes. I was watching horror movies like Alien and Terminator uncut on VHS.
- john_strinlai 1mo agoim not particularly concerned myself, but any ban like you propose would almost certainly go up to age 12 (at least), making it effectively impossible to enforce. i see your other comment about guns, so just to preempt that a little bit: the internet is far more ubiquitously available than guns are.
- OroPla 1mo agoI'm not feeling strongly about enforcement. The point would be to not have websites be liable if things go wrong, the way that breweries aren't responsible if some drunk teen drives to his death. Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned.
- john_strinlai 1mo ago>The point would be to not have websites be liable if things go wrong im mostly on board with that. >Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky alcohol bans are way easier to enforce. the internet is invisibly broadcast everywhere. most of my downtown & surrounding area has free wifi access. devices that can connect to the internet are also everywhere. phones, tablets, tvs, fridges, etc. on the other hand, alcohol comes from licensed stores and requires a physical transaction to take place.