There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to:

- purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID)

- allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life.

And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains.

Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward:

If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do.

Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.

▲

Aurornis 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety.

The hyperbole is getting a little out of control.

> - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

I don't understand how anyone can think that keeping kids entirely away from internet-connected devices through age 17 is possible or a good idea. These aren't serious comments or suggestions.

▲

lobf 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not only that but like, if your child touches the screen in your car have you committed a crime? Using a smart fridge is verboten- speaking to the house's Alexa? Straight to jail.

▲

invalidSyntax 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If one existed, it will probably be like: children under 18 using the internet without parent permission, but then that doesn't do much. They are not guns which you might not ever use. Many people use it daily.

▲

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

If a web client (fridge, infotainment system, alexa, etc...) can access the internet then it must be updated to look for RTA/adult headers and prompt for an admin password for parental controls to approve access to the site.

▲

lobf 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The internet is more than the www

	▲	Bender 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. My focus is on protecting families, small children and small children are primarily using tablets and phones. It's not perfect but it is a valid starting point. Grabbing everyone's PII and leaking it is a non starter. We can knock down the other goal posts once we fix this piece. Another option of course is to force all these companies and their age/ID vendors to be under something much stricter than PCI DSS and Fedramp for their entire data-centers as a starting point if we must allow storing PII data of children and their parents.

▲

keernan 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The concept is straight forward:

1. Eliminate all the false flag attempts by governments and their supporters to use "danger to children" to require government ID for every adult to get online.

2. If the internet is so dangerous as to require ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners.

▲

AngryData 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair with the way politicians are treating the internet and social media, it is the equivalent of giving them a loaded gun. Because otherwise how can they justify these laws? Politicians are the ones claiming kids are being irrevocably harmed by the internet.

	▲	Gigachad 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The internet as a whole is not a loaded gun, just social media and adult content. Wikipedia, educational sites, school websites and such are fine. Giving a kid Instagram and tiktok is like handing them over to a junkie on the street to try meth.

▲

mcherm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So apparently you believe that a 17-year-old should not be allowed to (a) order a pizza; (b) drive a car; (c) adjust the thermostat, unless they live in a sort of pre-internet Amish society which is probably based on the level of technology that was widely available when you were a child.

	▲	Bender 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I do not believe we should even try to restrict teens. Rather kids that would be 13 or younger by 2032 thus current teens not affected and kids that grow into teens that are still under parental controls could prove to their parents they are responsible enough to access adult content thus keeping parenting in the family and away from politicians.
	▲	keernan 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If the internet is so dangerous that it requires every adult to obtain a government ID to get online, then yes, a 10 year old (or 17 yo if that's the age you want to use) is going to have to wait just like he/she has to wait to drive a car or buy liquor or cigarettes or pot. Don't blame me. Blame the people pushing for a government ID that YOU must have before you can order your pizza.