| ▲ | simmerup 5 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | lambda 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You're going to need to provide a source for that outrageous claim. Also, which sites that are impacted by the age verification laws are involved in grooming in any way? Please be specific. |
|
| ▲ | pocksuppet 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why should that be our problem when we can just tell parents to parent? |
| |
| ▲ | Eji1700 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a middle ground shockingly and I do think it's roughly why this all came up at once. "Just parent" isn't easy in an age of large numbers of families having to both work and kids having a computer in their hands at all times. The "please don't say you're 18 if you aren't" standard has NEVER applied for anything else flagged as adult. If you sell products or allow services to a minor without doing proper checks YOU are responsible as the company if it's found to negligent, to the point you can lose your license. The thing is, you also don't fucking store every single ID you've ever looked at because that's insane, or if you do, you do it for very short periods of time. If a kid gets a fake ID, fine, that's on the kid so long as the company is doing their best. It's why an "adult mode" local cred on the machine is probably reasonable? If the kid gets a fake cred, fine, that's on the parents, but at least sites can automatically look for the cred and if not provided just bounce. As it is ALL the onus is on the family, and there's a fuckload of preying on children (especially economically) that's not supposed to be remotely legal that we've just kicked open the doors to because its "hard" to solve. | | | |
| ▲ | stirfish 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know this wasn't your point (and I agree with you here), but I heard the exact same thing, word for word, when the Catholic priest was just breaking. | |
| ▲ | fsckboy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | because parents get to vote same as you, and it looks like they are winning. there are many problems in the libertarian utopia that could be dumped on individuals ("if you don't like it, don't leave your house") but equally unfortunately many prefer a socialist utopia with lots of social and financial controls | | |
| ▲ | dangus 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think any parents as constituents had anything to do with these laws. If voter priorities influence legislature so much, where is our healthcare reform that the obvious majority of people have been demanding for decades? Many parliaments and legislative bodies throughout the western world continually ignore their constituents’ demands because lobbying bodies with real money get their priorities addressed first. |
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Tell parents to parent” is a nice slogan, but it means nothing in practice. Some parents won’t have the ability to police their kids, some won’t care, etc. What do you actually think it means to “tell parents to parent”? Be concrete. Do you think there should be legal consequences for people who let their kids on social media? Or just some kind of public service PR campaign? Anyway, why shouldn’t this apply to everything else? Should we repeal the laws against selling tobacco or alcohol to minors, or against an adult having sex with them? Why not just “tell parents to parent” ? |
|
|
| ▲ | uniq7 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the solution consists on me and my children sacrificing our privacy then I'm sorry, but I don't care about other people's children getting groomed. Your child, your responsibility, prepare him better for the world or throw the god damn phone to the trash, but please leave me alone. I had more sympathy for parents with this problem before, but not anymore. If they don't respect my rights, I don't see why I should care about them. |
| |
| ▲ | Waterluvian 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Other people’s kids aren’t your problem until they grow up and form a deeply unfit electorate and their country, representing less than 5% of the world population, makes an absolute mess of everything. Then they become everyone’s problem. | | |
| ▲ | uniq7 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Today's electorate is unfit. Is it also because they had TikTok when they were children? Or are they unfit because they consumed fake-news and QAnon-like content as adults? If it's the latter, how is age verification supposed to help here exactly? Since you are asking me to give away my privacy under this promise, I'm interested in the details. | | |
| ▲ | Waterluvian 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn’t say that, nor do I think these nonsense laws help. But “not my problem” is also nonsense. |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So the last 40 years? |
| |
| ▲ | 47282847 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't care about other people's children getting groomed. These other people’s children will be your own children’s bullies tomorrow and narcissistic bosses and politicians or similar gang members the day after. Fact is, we need to find solutions against child abuse in any shape or form that work given the circumstances and decision making of other people around us. We do not exist in isolation. I don’t think age verification in any way contributes positively to this problem space, and I don’t even think online grooming is near any top spot on the list of child abuse vectors that need addressing, but that doesn’t mean that the problem and our contribution to it (like looking away and doing nothing) should be denied as a whole. | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | dangus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don’t think software downloads, even downloads of software we might find objectionable, can be considered to be something that is engaging in “grooming.” That’s simply not what that word means. If your child takes interest in something you don’t like that they found online, they weren’t inherently groomed by anyone into liking it. |
|
| ▲ | lazide 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cite? |
|
| ▲ | phendrenad2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, this mandatory age input won't help with that, either. The parental controls are a much more powerful version. So I guess you're in favor of more strict version of this, and hope that we'll slippery-slope our way to it eventually? How do you propose to do that without ending internet anonymity for everyone? |
|
| ▲ | Spivak 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Taking for granted that is really the purpose, how does age verification solve this problem? Adults won't have any trouble accessing online spaces meant for kids under these laws. And then why does porn get mixed up in this, it's not exactly a place where kids "hang out." |
|
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Are you talking about Epstein, or something else? Epstein largely built his network through word of mouth. |
| |
| ▲ | simmerup 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m talking about kids on discord and etc It was a problem when I was younger and now it’s a bigger problem | | |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not really convinced that age verification is the solution to that, nor am I convinced that is sufficiently significant to be a problem that requires legislation, nor that legislation is the best means of addressing it if it were a problem. There are necessarily always risks to growing up. A legislator cannot regulate those risks out of existence. Parents are the only ones with the personal knowledge and responsibility to manage those risks. |
|
|