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 a day 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.

▲

Bender 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This may be true but the laws already exist for parents and legal guardians. To me this reeks of focusing on the wrong aspects to obtain tracking of adults. If parents are not doing their job then prosecute them for it. Or fine them if money is the goal.

"~You are a bad parent. Insert $500. Brought to you by Carls Jr."

▲

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

You seem to be under the impression that having held an opinion and changing it means the new opinion is better by default, but that's not true.

	▲	FridayoLeary 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In my mind it is. I understand both sides of the debate. I'm not switching one set of beliefs for something i believe is inferior, but i'm still open to hearing arguments why i'm wrong. Nobody has responded with anything more persuasive then "it's not my problem, why are you bothering me".

▲

ranger_danger a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.