[t8ty2evj]

This seems like a non-issue. Where's the damage? I'm tired of people using children and a miniscule population of users w/ severe content sensitivities as excuses to justify features that are really just tools for asserting norms. The children are fine. We've been talking about how bad the internet is for children so long that those children grew up, led fufilling lives, had their own children, and now those children are apparently being ruined by the internet. What children need isn't more protection it's an escape hatch from all the forces trying to manipulate them during their most vulnerable years.

[cercatrova]

I have to agree here. "Think of the children" is an excuse as old as time.

[goda90]

>What children need isn't more protection it's an escape hatch from all the forces trying to manipulate them during their most vulnerable years.

Isn't addicting content a force that's trying to manipulate them? Porn, certain kinds of games, online gambling, etc can all get their hooks in someone. Prevention is better than having to fight the addiction in the first place, is it not?

[lrvick]

I would argue TikTok is proving far more toxic to children than access to adult content and no one seems to care.

-Targeting- children with content for profit should be banned, regardless of content. If the content is neutral and presented to all the same way then they get to choose to put in the work to find what they want to consume. When it is not neutral then it is the job of a parent to help tip the scales back to neutral with conversation or partially supervised device use.

Nudity for instance is only taboo in some countries, where others are whatever about it and will see women topless at the beach. Trying to censor things or target things is what does the most harm and creates closeted behavior IMO.

News flash to parents... when your kid is old enough to be horny they -will- find an outlet to see nudity be it in person or on a screen. On a screen is probably the safer default.