Disagree. We can discuss what restrictions are appropriate or reasonable without calling it ageism.

Calling it ageism is an emotional appeal, not a principled stance.

Ageism is a legally defined form of discrimination as well as the subject of ethical discussions. It's a real, defined thing. Just because we disagree on what qualifies as ageism doesn't mean you get to call foul and say it's irrational/emotional.

▲

dpark 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This is literally a “think of the children[‘s freedom]” appeal. You’re not arguing for or against the restriction on its merits.

In the US at least there’s also no such thing legally as age discrimination against minors so far as I’m aware.

Edit:

Let me frame this differently. “Ageism” is basically by definition bad, so applying the term “ageism” to a restriction is a an attempt to label the restriction bad without establishing that on its own merits.

If you try to provide a consistent definition of “ageism” that applies to restricting access to the internet but not restricting access to alcohol, you will most certainly have to resort to phrases like “reasonable restrictions” (if not, I’m very interested in your definition), which means that there’s still a need to establish what is reasonable. Applying the label “ageism” without establishing reasonableness is then a circular argument.

▲

Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You’ve lost me.

	▲	dpark 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You* are using “ageism” as a synonym for “bad”. You are also labeling restrictions as “ageism” without establishing that they are actually bad. In effect you are saying “that’s bad!” without accepting the burden of establishing why it’s bad, but hiding this behind a different term that carries more emotional weight. It’s a very politically effective strategy but it’s not logically sound. * actually jMyles