This increasingly popular take comes across as a generational rung-pulling exercise. We pine for the 80s and 90s of unbridled freedom, lament that a 7 year old boy can't go out walking by himself in the neighborhood anymore without his parents going to jail, and then talk about "toxic materials" by saying things like "create an immutable record of browsing history - down to the request/response", as if that's not a preposterously toxic environment in which to raise a kid, for a plethora of reasons.

I was raised in that environment. It was but one aspect of my abusive upbringing, but a key one; the internet represented free information, which is dangerous to a child one is attempting to religiously indoctrinate. I can tell you now, it is a horrible way to raise a child, leads to zero trust and if anything, encourages antisocial, subversive behaviors.

▲

pyuser583 a day ago | parent [-]

I get that I really do. For a while our compromise was that our child could go to the library - that way they had access to free information.

But after some chats with the librarian, it became clear that wasn’t working. The libraries filtering software wasn’t great (it never is), and some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages.

They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.

What happens then, man? I understand your concern. My current rule with the one is: you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.

I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.

When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage. But when that system is never initiated, there needs to be a presumption of parental benevolence.

This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.

▲

subscribed a day ago | parent | next [-]

No, you don't "get that".

As someone who grew in poverty and neglect (thankfully less so physical abuse), and whose lifeline was a free, open and full access to the libraries since the ripe age of 6, I'll just say that yours "there is a system to mitigate damage" is terribly ignorant and indeed privileged, but "this will fail some kids" is just plain awful - indifferent and careless.

Look outside.

▲

soulofmischief a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I appreciate your response, and I'll address your concerns in turn.

> some of the books are only appropriate for certain ages

My great aunt was the main librarian at my elementary and middle school. Early on, I'd pretty much read every book that was interesting to me in our library. The rest of the material was not engaging for various reasons. Sensing my appetite and believing I could handle more adult-oriented material, she gave me access to a secret shelf in the back which contained adult novels deemed not suitable for the shelves. I was really into slasher and supernatural horror at the time, and there were a surprising amount of such novels already on the normal shelves, and quite a few novels had sexual content (I read a lot of Judy Blume, etc).

But this adult section gave me what I was missing. The stories weren't just more adult because more killing, or more sex, or whatever, the stories themselves were written for more advanced minds. Having taught myself to read at age 3 and having commanded a collegiate reading level by second grade, I finally felt like I wasn't stuck and could continue to progress as a reader. Since my computer use at home was heavily monitored and firewalled, this was great. The agreement was that I would not tell my grandparents about this arrangement; she knew to some degree how oppressive her brother was.

Later on in high school, I made friends with the bus driver who went by the local library, and convinced her to take me to the library after school instead of home, so that I could read and have unfiltered internet access to learn what I wanted without oversight and avoid a few hours of potential abuse at home. The library was my lifeline. I inundated myself with the staff to get extra privileges and slack. I hosted an open mic night, etc. When I met the love of my life, that's where I would take her to spend time. We would study together and get to know one another in a safe place, away from our oppressive parents/guardians. We're still together, 16 years later, and I owe that to the library providing a safe space.

At this point, my guardians literally just wanted me to end up dead in the street, so they stopped paying attention enough when I wasn't home that I was finally able to grow and discover myself. Up until that point, I had no concept of a personal identity and struggled to form one, because most aspects of my life and thoughts were controlled by my religious zealot guardians.

> They didn’t feel comfortable providing additional filters.

The above situation might be why.

> you can read anything you want as long as it’s paper.

I've read some very subversive things on paper, from 120 Days of Sodom to the manifestos of deeply-troubled individuals, and plenty in between. And anything can be printed out. I used to print out adult or erotic stories as a kid and hide them so that I could read them later. I had a small, but coveted secret stash of adult magazines. My belongings were regularly searched, as I was not even allowed so much as to draw anime figures with swords, or journal freely, so everything had to be routinely searched. Sometimes I didn't have a door. All that happened is I got better at hiding things.

Anyway, the material being on paper seems like an arbitrary line to draw.

> I get some parents are abusive, but I’m very opposed to using “a parent might be abusive” to limit parents discretion- within reason.

While hopefully unintentional, what you're saying is, "Because I can provide a privileged household where my child has (what I consider to be) reasonable restrictions, I should be allowed to have access to absolute and chilling effect inducing levels of surveillance and control over my child, and if that means that less privileged children with objectively abusive households live in a total hellscape, that's their problem and not mine. I only care about the welfare of my children, and other children are just collateral damage. Besides, it's statistically not many children who have to live in a total hellscape. And I didn't have to experience that myself, so it's fine."

> When parents are identified as abusive there is a system to mitigate damage

That's a nice idea, for sure. That is not how my life played out. I had two drug addict parents who went in and out of jail and homelessness, and lived with my abusive grandfather who was an ex boxer turned Catholic deacon. He would regularly beat the shit out of me and do awful things to me, and controlled every aspect of my life, would strangle and shake me while telling me that I'm Satan, etc. Cops were over all the time because the violence would get really bad and everyone in the family would join in on physically assaulting me.

The "mitigation" was them telling me that if I didn't listen to my benevolent grandfather, then I would be taken to a foster home or juvie, where they assured me my life would be even worse, and I would have even less access to an opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty and abuse.

> This will fail some kids. But the alternatives fail more.

It's so easy to write things off by saying, "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette" or something, when you or your family aren't the eggs being broken. Instead, this impacts a disproportionate number of impoverished children like me who did not have other financially stable environments in which to flee. It's classism, when you peel back all of the layers.

I hope you don't take this post negatively and understand why I feel the way I do about these things, and why "getting it" isn't enough if the conclusion is still, "this system works for me and therefore the lives it ruins are worth it."

	▲	pyuser583 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’m glad the responses to my comment are personal horror stories, because my comment is a personal horror story. It makes sense. I’m dealing with a mentally ill adolescent addicted to very toxic content. You grew up in an oppressive environment where among other horrible things information restriction was abused. Both legitimate concerns, and both should be part of the same discussion. But consider: it was librarian cautioning me about what my child was doing in the library. Not quite kicking my child out, but simply saying we can’t guarantee their safety. For you the library was a safe space. For my child the library is not - according to the librarian. I’d like to point out, nobody is saying parents should allow their children to access anything. Especially on the internet. Are you saying that? I don’t think you are - but you are understandably skeptical of parents moral rectitude. What tools should a parent whose child is addicted to videos of animal abuse or self harm have at their disposal? And I mean pretending to sleep until mom and dad have gone to bed and watching for 6 hours straight instead of sleeping, for multiple nights in a row. Going 72 hours straight with no sleep to watch people cutting themselves and animals being slaughtered (hypothetical). I’m simply saying the tools parents have to effectively filter are antiquated and broken. Also keep in mind the original article is one that discusses removing encryption and adopting some type of state surveillance. Something I am quite opposed to. My proposal is far more permissive, and affects child free grownups not at all. Thank you for your careful reading of my post, and I am very sorry for the things that happened to you growing up. You’ve come a long way and I respect that.