> A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents

(Speaking as a parent of three) why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents? In our experience in the offline world it seems this applies!

I speak as someone who's taken each of my three children - for two of them, multiple times - to the emergency room to be treated for broken bones incurred in the course of Real Life[tm].

Yes, they play contact sports.

Yes, we use Family Link with pretty restrictive settings.

Despite the series of broken bones, I'm still in favour of kids playing sports and still dubious about the effect of screen time on young minds...

▲

II2II 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> (Speaking as a parent of three) why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents?

Then I'm sure that you appreciate that there are both legal and informal checks in place ensuring that you can take responsibility for your children in the offline world. For example: I would be surprised if your children were able to play organized sports without your permission. Failing to ask for permission would deny you the responsibility of protecting your child as you see fit.

▲

mejutoco 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales

▲

saghm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't need to show your ID to go into the store and buy something else though, so why would this provide any sort of precedent for "you can't use the internet for literally anything on this device without proving your age"?

	▲	mejutoco 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was responding to this quote only > why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents? In our experience in the offline world it seems this applies!

▲

gbear605 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In many areas, this is left up to the parents - minors can't buy alcohol at stores, but parents are legally allowed to give alcohol to their children to drink.

▲

WD-42 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could always sign your kid into tik tok to avoid age restrictions if you want. Same thing

	▲	manquer 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the distinction the comment is drawing is about the legality of it not the practical feasibility . It would be illegal under the currently proposed /implemented laws and also open up social media to liability, which wouldn’t be true for other products like Alcohol or fire arms that require minimum age to buy but not give to children

▲

BoorishBears 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So we don't leave it all up to the parents: parents can give it, but minors also can't buy it regardless of parental views.

Also give it to your kids too often and the state can step in.

Defense in depth

▲

armchairhacker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

An analogous good implementation of age restriction is that one must show their ID to buy an unrestricted device if they look too young.

They can't be tracked, as long as the devices are in randomly sorted identical boxes. Of course someone can buy a device and give it to a kid, but that's already possible with alcohol (and legal if it's their kid).

▲

logifail 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales

I bought a beer yesterday and shared it with our 16 year-old, and I shared some wine with him this evening.

How does that not come under "parental responsibility"?

▲

intended an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you use yourself as an example of parenting?

The issue isn’t the parents who can’t imagine bad parenting.

▲

Barrin92 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents?

because we don't live in a 15th century peasant village. The average adult reads at a 7th grade level, 20% of adults are considered functionally illiterate, most adults can't navigate digital spaces, privacy and social media themselves or take on trillion dollar companies.

This also hasn't applied in the offline world since idk, Kant and Hegel, every modern state recognizes that children are persons and citizens in development, not private possessions. If your children have broken bones you can't explain or your parenting is considered to threaten the welfare of your child you can be pretty sure you'll have the authorities at your door quickly, and countries like France have given children the right to sue their parents in case they breach their digital privacy. So called 'sharenting' laws exist because it's not guaranteed that parents are even respecting the privacy of their own children.

▲

logifail 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If your children have broken bones you can't explain [..]

I don't mean to be combative about this but

1) do you have children and 2) if yes, how many times have you taken your child to hospital with a broken bone

I have (unfortunately) got a certain amount of experience with this, and I'm not sure it works the way the uninitiated may think it does.

	▲	Barrin92 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>1) do you have children and 2) if yes, how many times have you taken your child to hospital with a broken bone yes one and never but it's not clear to me what our personal life has to do with the legal fact that the welfare of our children is in fact not solely in our hands and is subject to limits we can run foul of

▲

Exoristos 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your sharents don't love you like your parents do.