5 ms·

She's probably not as innocent as you'd like to believe, and she's probably tougher than you give her credit for. She also has a basic human right to access inf

She's probably not as innocent as you'd like to believe, and she's probably tougher than you give her credit for. She also has a basic human right to access information. Please try to see that restricting information when someone is young deforms their worldview for the rest of their life. We as parents hope that the deformation is a positive one, but this isn't necessarily so. We're biased into thinking we've made positive choices for our children regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The bias is hardwired, and unless we take conscious steps to evaluate whether our behavior makes sense then it's easy to get swept up in a "think of the children" argument.

rhubarbcustard 13y ago
Totally agree with you but I'm sure you'd agree that watching porn is not something that a 11-year-old should be doing? She is more or less free to browse what she wants, she reads Wikipedia articles, reads the news etc etc but I can't see how viewing porn would be good for her worldview?
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  >watching porn is not something that a 11-year-old should be doing Why? Note I'm truly not trying to start a fight here, but I do try to stay open-minded and question assumptions. To me, this: >I can't see how viewing porn would be good for her worldview is not only not terribly convincing, it's also not a reason to censor something.
- prawks 13y ago
  I think children's worldview is largely determined by how their parents teach them (usually indirectly) how to internalize information they absorb and encounters they have. What would your 11-year-old do if she saw porn? How would she think about it? How would it affect her worldview? Would it really be negative? How would you have reacted at that age? Would it have changed your worldview in a negative way? What kinds of information does she not have access to that she should? When should she be sexually educated? Just some things to think about.
- Crito 13y ago
  If she is actively seeking it out, there really are no technical solutions that you can use to stop her (short of taking all electronics from her). She'll find a way around any filter. If that is the sort of situation that you're in, sitting down with her and having a talk is really the only workable solution. If the concern is accidentally viewing porn... well, I have a few thoughts on that: 1) How often does that actually happen? My office does not have content filters on the internet, yet I have never accidentally viewed porn at work. I can't actually remember the last time I accidentally viewed porn at work. I strongly suspect that 95% of the "accident" cases are excuses that people make when they get caught. 2) If the concern is popups and she won't stop going to shady sites that have porn popups, use adblock. Problem solved. Also, tell her not to go to those sites, before you get the UK equivalent of a DMCA notice from your ISP... 3) Accidentally viewing a few naked people in popups is probably not going to damage her worldview. Would it be good for it? No. But I don't think it will cause any damage either.
  - astrobe_ 13y ago
    It's the same logic as with DRM: it won't prevent anybody from doing what they want, but it will stop a significant part of them. Right now websites have no way not to deliver inappropriate contents. The best they can do is to ask "are you 18+?" (see for instance Reddit), which a 3 years old could bypass. A basic protection against accidental view and/or kids a bit too curious could be as simple as: A) Have the adult sites to insert a HTTP header marking them as such. They have no reason from doing it, plus not delivering porn to kids is a legal requirement in most countries (or I guess so). This is a flexible solution for sites with mixed contents such as Reddit, because the mark is per-page. B) Have browsers not to show these sites if the 'adult content' is not ticked in the user profile. C) Make a tutorial that explains how to create restricted user profiles on their computers (so they can prevent their kids from using browsers that don't support this policy). Alternatively, but it would impact too much websites I guess, is to use a "safe for kids" header and have browsers to only show such sites etc.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  For example, Wikipedia can't convey the atrocities which are being committed in Syria as we speak. Videos can. Such a video may be the spark to convince her to pursue a path of providing humanitarian aid to war-torn countries. But such a motive won't come about if her information inflow is restricted to morally neutral content. It's admittedly unlikely, but on the other hand, it's just one example. Everyone should be free to parent how they see fit, but it's probably important to spend time meditating on the full implications of taking actions that align with our own preconceived moral systems. Such actions often have unforeseen consequences, and it's so easy to convince ourselves that the good outweighs the bad when we really have no way of knowing.
  - Crito 13y ago
    It is kind of interesting that Wikipedia articles on war crimes and atrocities seem to typically be rather tame, while I am hard-pressed to find an article about a disease does not have photographs that make me want to vomit in my mouth.
DanBC 13y ago
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an eleven year old girl getting access to "bukkake bitch anal gape slut". Can you understand how that is different from "access to information"? This post makes you sound deranged. Unless you're just talking about pointless filtering of wikipedia articles?
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  This topic is uncomfortable. When I suggest that maybe 11-year-old girls should have access to pornography, I feel like a fucking creep. But you know what? That doesn't make me wrong. Often, it's the most obvious and deep-set assumptions that need to be challenged most. Above all, I'd appreciate it if you'd spend less time calling other people deranged, and more time civilly arguing your case.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Many countries have age restrictions for accessing items - alcohol, pornography, tobacco, right to vote, ability to consent to sex. Do you agree that those restrictions aim to serve a useful purpose? (We can ignore flaws in implementation here because we're just talking about the principle of restriction). You might agree or disagree on some of the restrictions but do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children?
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      >Many countries have age restrictions for accessing items - alcohol, pornography, tobacco, right to vote, ability to consent to sex. I'm aware of that. That fact alone (that some restrictions are widely-adopted) doesn't justify them. >...do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children? First, I think that "children" needs a more rigid definition. And of course my response varies depending on the particular restriction (as you've already acknowledged). But it's not terribly difficult for me to imagine some situation involving some child which I would find undesirable in some way. And because I can easily see your vague, unfocused question leading a bit more off-topic than I'd prefer to stray, I think I'll leave it at that.

rhubarbcustard 13y ago

Totally agree with you but I'm sure you'd agree that watching porn is not something that a 11-year-old should be doing? She is more or less free to browse what she wants, she reads Wikipedia articles, reads the news etc etc but I can't see how viewing porn would be good for her worldview?

BlackDeath3 13y ago
>watching porn is not something that a 11-year-old should be doing Why? Note I'm truly not trying to start a fight here, but I do try to stay open-minded and question assumptions. To me, this: >I can't see how viewing porn would be good for her worldview is not only not terribly convincing, it's also not a reason to censor something.
prawks 13y ago
I think children's worldview is largely determined by how their parents teach them (usually indirectly) how to internalize information they absorb and encounters they have. What would your 11-year-old do if she saw porn? How would she think about it? How would it affect her worldview? Would it really be negative? How would you have reacted at that age? Would it have changed your worldview in a negative way? What kinds of information does she not have access to that she should? When should she be sexually educated? Just some things to think about.
Crito 13y ago
If she is actively seeking it out, there really are no technical solutions that you can use to stop her (short of taking all electronics from her). She'll find a way around any filter. If that is the sort of situation that you're in, sitting down with her and having a talk is really the only workable solution. If the concern is accidentally viewing porn... well, I have a few thoughts on that: 1) How often does that actually happen? My office does not have content filters on the internet, yet I have never accidentally viewed porn at work. I can't actually remember the last time I accidentally viewed porn at work. I strongly suspect that 95% of the "accident" cases are excuses that people make when they get caught. 2) If the concern is popups and she won't stop going to shady sites that have porn popups, use adblock. Problem solved. Also, tell her not to go to those sites, before you get the UK equivalent of a DMCA notice from your ISP... 3) Accidentally viewing a few naked people in popups is probably not going to damage her worldview. Would it be good for it? No. But I don't think it will cause any damage either.
- astrobe_ 13y ago
  It's the same logic as with DRM: it won't prevent anybody from doing what they want, but it will stop a significant part of them. Right now websites have no way not to deliver inappropriate contents. The best they can do is to ask "are you 18+?" (see for instance Reddit), which a 3 years old could bypass. A basic protection against accidental view and/or kids a bit too curious could be as simple as: A) Have the adult sites to insert a HTTP header marking them as such. They have no reason from doing it, plus not delivering porn to kids is a legal requirement in most countries (or I guess so). This is a flexible solution for sites with mixed contents such as Reddit, because the mark is per-page. B) Have browsers not to show these sites if the 'adult content' is not ticked in the user profile. C) Make a tutorial that explains how to create restricted user profiles on their computers (so they can prevent their kids from using browsers that don't support this policy). Alternatively, but it would impact too much websites I guess, is to use a "safe for kids" header and have browsers to only show such sites etc.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
For example, Wikipedia can't convey the atrocities which are being committed in Syria as we speak. Videos can. Such a video may be the spark to convince her to pursue a path of providing humanitarian aid to war-torn countries. But such a motive won't come about if her information inflow is restricted to morally neutral content. It's admittedly unlikely, but on the other hand, it's just one example. Everyone should be free to parent how they see fit, but it's probably important to spend time meditating on the full implications of taking actions that align with our own preconceived moral systems. Such actions often have unforeseen consequences, and it's so easy to convince ourselves that the good outweighs the bad when we really have no way of knowing.
- Crito 13y ago
  It is kind of interesting that Wikipedia articles on war crimes and atrocities seem to typically be rather tame, while I am hard-pressed to find an article about a disease does not have photographs that make me want to vomit in my mouth.

DanBC 13y ago

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an eleven year old girl getting access to "bukkake bitch anal gape slut". Can you understand how that is different from "access to information"? This post makes you sound deranged. Unless you're just talking about pointless filtering of wikipedia articles?

BlackDeath3 13y ago
This topic is uncomfortable. When I suggest that maybe 11-year-old girls should have access to pornography, I feel like a fucking creep. But you know what? That doesn't make me wrong. Often, it's the most obvious and deep-set assumptions that need to be challenged most. Above all, I'd appreciate it if you'd spend less time calling other people deranged, and more time civilly arguing your case.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Many countries have age restrictions for accessing items - alcohol, pornography, tobacco, right to vote, ability to consent to sex. Do you agree that those restrictions aim to serve a useful purpose? (We can ignore flaws in implementation here because we're just talking about the principle of restriction). You might agree or disagree on some of the restrictions but do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children?
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    >Many countries have age restrictions for accessing items - alcohol, pornography, tobacco, right to vote, ability to consent to sex. I'm aware of that. That fact alone (that some restrictions are widely-adopted) doesn't justify them. >...do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children? First, I think that "children" needs a more rigid definition. And of course my response varies depending on the particular restriction (as you've already acknowledged). But it's not terribly difficult for me to imagine some situation involving some child which I would find undesirable in some way. And because I can easily see your vague, unfocused question leading a bit more off-topic than I'd prefer to stray, I think I'll leave it at that.