| |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | These are not 20 something college students with jobs and rented apartments, doing stuff without their parents knowing. These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing. The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone, so the governments know who the "loud ones" (against whatever political cause) are. Using small kids as a reason to do so is a typical modus operandi to achieve that. Yes, those "one or two adults" I meantioned should be the parents, and yes, parents can legally confiscate their kids phones if they're doing something stupid online. They can also check what the kid is doing online. If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents, that kid will also be able to avoid such checks by vpn-ing (or using a proxy) to some non-UK country, where those checks won't be mandatory. This again is solved by the parents actually parenting, again... it's kids younger than 13, at that age, parents can and should have total control of their child. | | |
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It has to be acknowledged that some things, like social media and pornography, are harmful to children. "Maintain the status quo" isn't an attractive response to that. ID laws are not a perfect solution, maybe not even a good one. You undermine your whole point by pretending VPNs are going to make the whole thing moot. Why do you care when you won't be affected because you can just use a VPN? Why does pornhub make such a fuss when their users can just use a VPN? Because in reality, introducing that much friction will stop a lot of people. | | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | ID laws are the end goal, the children and porn are just an excuse to get ID laws, which would give the governments a lot more control over the internet and social networks. Just imagin someone like Trump/Ursula requesting full list of names of everyone criticizing them on eg reddit (because reddit has porn, and you'd have to show your ID to be able to use reddit, because of your reasons). This is objectively bad for the people and for the internet. Parenting is a good solution, not just giving the kids tablets so they stay quiet. Yes, kids are curious, kids will still find porn, ID laws or not, but parents should teach them and limit their access, not IDs on discord. And of course porhub is making a fuss, are you, an (assuming an) adult going to go to your telco with your ID and say "hi, i'm John, i want to watch porn and jerk off, but you need to see my ID first"? Or will you find some other alternatives, where pornhub doesn't earn that money? | | |
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Parenting is a good solution Yes, to most of society's problems. Yet they persist. | | |
| ▲ | alexey-salmin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | So? They equally persist in the face of endless laws, I don't see how it follows that piling more laws on top is a better idea than deferring this to parents. | | |
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Parenting was the answer to kids not wearing their seatbelt, and getting maimed and killed by very survivable accidents. Simply teach your kids to wear their seatbelt. Yet seatbelt laws reduced fatality (8%) and serious injury (9%) in kids. It follows that "piling" such a law "on top", one that people decried as unconstitutional, was a better idea than deferring to the parents. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13408/w134... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Hizonner 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It has to be acknowledged that some things, like social media and pornography, are harmful to children. It only "has to be acknowledged" if it's true. The "evidence" for either of those, but especially social media (as if that were even a single well defined thing to begin with) is pretty damned shakey. Nobody "has to acknowledge" your personal prejudices. | | |
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You've convinced me that pornography is, in fact, beneficial to children. What was I thinking? Thank you for your reply. | | |
| ▲ | Hizonner 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Nice try, but the burden of proof for your assertion is still on you. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SkyBelow 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing. Yes they do. If all that is preventing them from having a job is depending upon their parents to stop that behavior, there are enough parents who aren't going to intervene that I will reasonably be able to staff my coal mine. Sure, the parents should do a better job, but history shows us that many don't (be it choice or be it other factors). So are we willing for the kids of those parents to effectively be treated as adults by everyone else or are we going to keep laws that protect kids even when parents aren't doing so? | |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone The UK government is nowhere near competent enough to be that stealthy. Also, it already has this ability already. Identifying a person on social media is pretty simple, All it takes is a request to the media company, and to the ISP/phone provider. > If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents, Then you have bigger fucking problems. If a 12yo can do that, in your home and not let on, then you've raised a fucking super spy. > parents can and should have total control of their child. Like how? constantly check their phones? that's just invasion of privacy, your kid's never going to trust you. Does the average parent know how to do that, will they enforce non-disappearing messages? Allowing kids to be social, safe and not utter little shits online is fucking hard. I'm really not sure how we can make sure kids aren't being manipulated by fucking tiktok rage bait. (I mean adults are too, but thats a different problem) |
| |
| ▲ | alexey-salmin 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You keep saying it's flawed but I don't see how or why. What exactly is wrong with the idea that parents should look after their kids? | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 5 days ago | parent [-] | | In the eyes of people who propose laws like this, what's wrong is that that wouldn't let them forcibly impose their values on everyone else. |
|
|
