I don't understand how this is any better.

It's my job as a parent (and I have several kids...) to monitor the things they consume and talk with them about it.

I don't want some blanket ban on content unless it's "age appropriate", because I don't approve that content being banned. (honestly - the idea of "age appropriate" is insulting in the first place)

Fuck man, I can even legally give my kids alcohol - I don't see why it's appropriate to enforce what content I allow them to see.

And I have absolutely all of the same tools you just discussed today. I can lock devices down just fine.

Age verification is a scam to increase corporate/governmental control. Period.

▲

armchairhacker 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You should be able to choose what's age-appropriate for your kids. Giving them access to e.g. "PG-13" media when they're 9 isn't the problem. Giving mature kids unrestricted access isn't a problem. The problem is culture:

- Many parents don't think about restricting their kids' online exposure at all. And I think a larger issue than NSFW is the amount of time kids are spending: 5 hours according to this survey from 2 years ago https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/teen-social-use-mental-h.... Educating parents may be all that is needed to fix this, since most parents care about their kids and restrict them in other ways like junk food

- Parents that want to restrict their kids struggle with ineffective parental controls: https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare.... Optional parental controls would fix this

	▲	SiempreViernes an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Parents that want to restrict their kids struggle with ineffective parental controls: https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare.... Optional parental controls would fix this Did you mean "mandatory" parental controls? All current systems are optional and as you describe they are frequently ineffective, so not clear why keeping things like they are would be different.

▲

aidenn0 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Fuck man, I can even legally give my kids alcohol - I don't see why it's appropriate to enforce what content I allow them to see.

In the USA it depends on the state. Federal guidelines for alcohol law does suggest exemptions for children drinking under the supervision of their parents, but that's not uniformly adopted. 19 states have no such exceptions, and in many of the remaining 31, restaurants may be banned from allowing alcohol consumption by minors even when their parents are there.

▲

gmueckl 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You're assuming that this person is in the US. Alcohol is treated far more liberally in other places. For example, in some places it is legal for restaurants to serve alcohol to minors who are accompanied by a parent...

Another thing: I fundamentally disagree with certain age rarings for kids content. Some explicit violence is rated OK for young audiences, but insert a swear word or a some skin and the age rating is bumped up? This rating system is nonhelp at all. I have to review each bit of content anyway before I can be certain.

	▲	aidenn0 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Starting a comment with "In the USA..." is the exact opposite of assuming a person is in the US.

▲

jatari 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The law is there to protect children in the case they have absent/neglectful parents. Unfortunately not every child has a parent as aware as you.

▲

pelotron 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People angrily replying to the top comment on this article are going to be pissed when they find out about this guy.

▲

rolph 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this seems to be an issue of being able to be a parent, period.

yup we should all be able, to talk to our kids instead of screaming at them.