It's largely a wealth inequality issue.

Rich parents can have nannies, expensive software, or a parent who stays home from work. Poorer parents do not have time or energy to police this stuff or supervise their kids. They're too busy putting food on the table and paying rent or a mortgage.

▲

Avicebron 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Absolutely, it's the system failing and predatory actors seeing a crisis they can exploit.

I was at the laundromat and a woman with kids was complaining across the room about how she only had $700.00 in her account. Note, she had a car, wasn't homeless, but this is actual reality for a huge number of people in the US.

▲

microgpt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

For me that would be a crisis. I always want to have at least a few thousands and then if something unexpected happens, that other people will go into a small debt for, I will just be able to spend the money and not go into debt. And it's not like it's hard to save up a few thousand dollars in a time frame of years, so I don't understand people who don't.

I think it may be that people grew up accustomed to having everything constantly taken away from them, so they learn not to save stuff.

	▲	Avicebron 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> And it's not like it's hard to save up a few thousand dollars in a time frame of years, so I don't understand people who don't. Seeing this as some sort of moral failing isn't the right way to look at it. It's possible that that this person could have done that, but it's also they they really may not have been able to, low wages, bad environment, health issues, all of these compound until "it's not hard to just" is a gross way to interpret their situation.

▲

pessimizer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rich parents can not prevent their children from accessing pornography and social media on the internet, and will also not be able to do so after this legislation.

Pornography is often delivered by people who don't care about US legislation, and social media is carefully left undefined, intentionally confounded with algorithms used to surface content (which people actually do object to at least the opaqueness of.)

I, like most, don't think that the totalitarianism is an unfortunate side-effect of the attempt to protect children online. I think legislation, and legislation like this, will only be successful in increasing surveillance and public manipulation, and that it will have virtually no effect on childrens' consumption of pornography and social media. If you really wanted to protect children, there's better legislation to write and technical solutions to implement.

	▲	microgpt 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		When I was 14 I could just type porn.com into the address bar to see porn. (I remember - they had one of those fake customer testimonials - saying basically "porn.com is the best address for a porn site" which is very funny. Besides that it was nothing, so next time I googled the word porn). Should it be that easy or should there be some road blocks? Should I have been able to go into a store at 14 and buy a beer?