| ▲ | kelvinjps10 7 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So kids shouldn’t have access to sites like Wikipedia? Banning the internet is not the correct solution many kids depend on the internet to have access to education. The argument could be made for banning social media but the whole internet I don’t think it’s the correct approach | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If Wikipedia can't put in the effort with those millions in donations to get an age rating? I guess not. We know Youtube will. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mrguyorama 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If we had a "Safe for everyone" public internet and a locked down "Prove you are an adult" internet beside it, nothing prevents wikipedia from being on the Safe for Everyone internet. Also, Encarta was a thing. Expensive though. Some states would legislate wikipedia onto the "Adults only" web though because they don't like what it says about things like abortion and trans people. A lot of ecommerce companies would probably be happy with a locked down adults only internet, because it would kick bot protection up a level, and would require a fairly robust solution to it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||