Remix.run Logo
bArray a day ago

I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group.

What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and some method to confirm you are the person on the ID. You could imagine this being consolidated into a government ID system to 'protect your data', and to mean you only have to validate once. These accounts will be permanently attached to real people, and I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech. It's all fun and games until the government of the day considers your speech as a threat.

One can see this being expanded too, so that you would need to provide ID to use the internet more generally. ISPs could be told to selectively deliver web pages from DNS based on your ID, which would be most effective on mobile devices and less so on wired networks. My ISP already blocks websites.

I think a more fundamental question is whether the nanny state should be telling you how to raise your children, what content they can consume and who they can interact with. Suddenly you find your children consuming content only from a Z-wing bias because the government of the day hates Y-wing politics.

zarzavat a day ago | parent | next [-]

> You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there

This applies to under 16 year olds though, not little children but adolescents. I would hope that every parent of teenagers allows them to talk to random people on the street.

blackoil a day ago | parent [-]

Instead of binary it should be tiered, complete monitoring of online activity of child till say age 8, to gradually opening the circle till age 14-16. We do it for movies/games.

2OEH8eoCRo0 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Back in the 90's we were somewhat supervised when using the internet on the family PC. We were also somewhat supervised while watching the family TV.

bArray 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Good point. There was a technology shift in portability and cost which meant each individual got a personal computer. They went from the common areas to personal spaces like bedrooms.

Maybe a lot of issue could be resolved by just having a phone that has to be in a common space, using a technology like LiFi [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi

cynicalsecurity a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the most horrifying thing in all of this. People with a prison guard mentality are already thinking how to enforce the rules in an even stricter way. Rules that are violating freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Yes, there are no repreciations for the violating them at first, the frog is getting boiled slowly, but give it a few years and people who let their child use social media will be treated as criminals and put in prisons. Everything "for the sake of children."

blackoil a day ago | parent [-]

> freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms.

Children's access to info is limited in all societies.

logicchains a day ago | parent [-]

No it isn't; children have always been able to borrow the same books from libraries as adults, read the same newspapers. Just now much of the information doesn't live in books or newspapers.

blackoil a day ago | parent [-]

Movies have ratings and entry to hall is restricted. Games have rating and ability to buy them is restricted. books allowed in school libraries is heavily curated and sometimes restricted by law or vested groups. It is illegal to sell R18 magazines to a minor.

hn_acker a day ago | parent [-]

Movie ratings are voluntary in the US. Restrictions on selling porn to minors are orthogonal to movie ratings. It's generally legal for a theatre to sell a ticket for a PG-13 movie intended for 15-year-olds to a 12-year-old who hasn't received parental permission. Most theatres would refuse to sell the ticket, and most parents wouldn't let their 12-year-old child go to a movie theatre alone, but the bulk of the responsibility of preventing children from watching inappropriate movies falls on parents and guardians.

Banning children from social media is like banning children from movie theatres. A ban should consider that (1) different restrictions are appropriate for different ages of children (e.g. 12 vs 15), (2) depending on the country (e.g. the US with the First Amendment to the Constitution), children may have information access rights that parents can take away but governments can't, and (3) children in unhealthy relationships with parents or guardians (e.g. transphobic/homophobic parents of LGBTQ+ kids) should be able to access some kinds of social media without letting their parents/guardians know.

Der_Einzige a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The benefit of allowing one nerdy kid unrestricted access to the internet is often larger than literally hundreds of people “harmed” by that very same access.

Trying to kill the pipeline for creating the “hacker” mentality that folks here are supposed to have is supreme level bootlicking. I hope you eventually find it disgusting.

bArray 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. I'm expressing my concerns with these restrictions.

My bigger concern than the creation of a free-thinking hacker - is the creation of a free-thinking society.