People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not tell kids to not go to certain websites? We still went to the shady part of town and the kids will still go to 4chan but at least we don't need to give away freedoms. Such erosion of freedom for the common person because parents can't have an awkward conversation is irritating.

▲

epolanski an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't remember who said it, but protecting children isn't the end goal, it's tracking adults.

▲

FridayoLeary 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from the wider society they live in.

[1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children with developing minds.

▲

wao0uuno 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

4chan is probably one of the least brain damaging sites kids can go to these days. It has porn and stupid memes, true. But so does google if you turn the safe search off. It's the corporate run sites and services with ai powered recommendation engines that are the most problematic. Infinite scroll sites like reddit or tiktok are what really fucks up your brain. I used to frequent 4chan as a kid back in the day when it was truly a wild corner of the internet and I turned out just fine.

	▲	FridayoLeary 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with you about infinite scroll. I don't know you so i couldn't possibly comment on your other claim...

▲

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

Recently in the U.S. news a parent was convicted of murder because they facilitated making weapons to their child who then committed a school shooting. They didn't give their child weapons and tell them to go do it, they just didn't keep them away. This is a good trend that I hope continues and will actually help prevent school shootings. Parents are responsible for their children. If children are frying their brains due to Internet exposure, similarly it's the parents fault, and they should be held liable for child abuse in the same manner as if they committed other negligence.

Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other children inappropriate material because their parents are negligent, the other parents should be able to take those parents to court and recover damages if they can collect evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop pretty quick.

> they need help from the wider society they live in.

Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference.

> I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults

Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked with verification nonsense because someone else can't.

▲

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

So the solution is effective parental controls. Government mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is unlikely to be very effective.

That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.

▲

ranger_danger 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all.

We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.

▲

FridayoLeary an hour ago | parent [-]

The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm passing no judgement just observing.

>We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door

My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily discourage children from entering certain places and talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in the real world, there is simply not enough in the internet.

I don't say this lightly. I am very firmly against the nanny state, and i feel equally strongly in parental rights. I've made comments in the past against these laws but i feel it's the only way forward. The only question that remains is how to best implement such policies to minimize the inevitable erosion of our privacy.

I don't like it, but that's how it is.

	▲	ranger_danger 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. What evidence is that? Who gets to say what's sufficient? Unless there is a high probability that an alleged lack of control will negatively other people than the family in question, I don't think it should be the government's business to police.

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you have children?

▲

mapotofu 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn’t have an involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding friends to just “go outside and play” wasn’t an option. Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in technical skill and life experience, to know how these things work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don’t.

▲

huflungdung 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Haven’t you considered that the fact you were exposed to these things made you who you are today am able to say that with conviction. If you had been shielded from the reality on human extremism you would not.

	▲	financltravsty 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Vouched, because this was going to be my counterpoint as someone who had the same circumstances as the grandparent. Despite the enormously heinous stuff I've seen on that site, it has made me a better writer, developed my critical thinking skills, and given me a perspective on the world and its people that wouldn't have existed without. It also introduced me to many different things and developed my taste beyond measure. The massive downside, that I suspect the grandparent still wrestles with, is integrating all of depravity of humankind into a coherent world view without falling into cognitive dissonance between the idealized and constructed world with an onslaught of information on the actual reality of it. It's sort of like looking into the Epstein files and having to decide one's reaction to them: - crushed by despair at the state of things leading to nihilism and depression - deciding to ignore it all, and continuing to go on about one's life without integrating it - acceptance, normalization, and corruption - a secret fourth option that reaffirms you, using that news as fuel for whatever ends in the hope you can improve the world even if just a little bit, despite how ugly it is And so on.

▲

gleenn 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.

▲

oarsinsync 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all controlled substances.

We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it. We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase the former.

Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children. Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem.

And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall problem goes away.