[ETH_start]

It's 100% bullshit. The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised.

The culture of over-reaction to danger that has taken over the political domain is creating a nanny state where it's impossible to avoid crosssing red lines and doing something wrong. It's paralyzing society by instilling inaction as the only safe path.

[itake]

> The parents themselves are responsible

Parents give their kids access to guns and we all know how that ends. If we can't hold parents accountable for their children's violence, I seriously doubt we can do anything about parents failing to parent their kids on this topic.

What are we going to do? throw the single mom with 2 jobs and 5 kids in jail because she didn't pay $20/mo for parental controls on her kids devices?

[ETH_start]

>throw the single mom with 2 jobs and 5 kids in jail because she didn't pay $20/mo for parental controls on her kids devices?

If she wants to have children out of wedlock or with a man who are not financially capable of being a provider, then she and her children should bear the consequences of that, not everyone else who know has to have government take over the internet and mandates identity disclosures for perusing adult content.

[itake]

Society pays the consequences either directly from government or the impact the kids have on everyone else that has to live with adults that discovered porn as a kid before they could understand it.

Kids that discovered porn at an early age will not understand how to process it properly and this will impact their relationships in the future. It is their future partners that suffer along with the kids and family.

[ETH_start]

If that's really the case, the only person who should be punished is the parent. Everyone else should not be punished with a more restricted society.

[itake]

How do you punish the parent without punishing the kid? Throw the single mom in jail? fine her? take the kid away?

If the kid is living with single-income grandma, b/c parents passed. Do we throw grandma in jail for not blocking the content properly?

[ETH_start]

Yes punish the parent, and have the kid adopted by another family. That is much better than turning society into a police state where everyone's rights limited.

[robertlagrant]

> The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised.

Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

> The culture of over-reaction to danger

Which is it? Is it that parents haven't protected their children enough, or that children don't need protection from watching pornography?

[ETH_start]

>Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

You have to not let your child near any older child with a non-child-safe phone. This is the parents' responsibility.

[monkeyfun]

>Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Also, on your second point, you seem to be almost strawmanning -- I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection.

They're stating that parents are actively giving their kids devices, and have a lot of tools to restrict usage of those devices. Whether they literally limit physical access, oversee use, or install filtering software, there's a lot that can be done to restrict access in an authoritarian manner to those kids, and exclusively within the household without having to affect and restrict the overwhelming majority of society: grown adults.

(I also personally believe education is more important than any sort of restriction, and am always against censorship or surveillance policies in general. I definitely agree with them on but I'm trying to mostly restrict my post to what that person almost definitely had in mind, rather than soapboxing my own views).

[Izkata]

> > Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

> ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Pre-internet, there was a fairly common trope of a kid discovering a dirty magazine, often hidden in the home by an older sibling, and showing it to their friends. Nothing actually happening, they were just sharing the images. GP seemed to just be suggesting that updated for the internet age.

[robertlagrant]

> ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Just anything. Beheading videos. Whatever. I can't imagine anyone not realising this is a virtual certainty for some older kids to show younger kids.

> I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection.

They called it "danger".

> there's a lot that can be done to restrict access in an authoritarian manner to those kids

But not to their kids' friends' older siblings. If you're not talking about that then I don't think you're particularly replying to my comment.

> I also personally believe education is more important than any sort of restriction, and am always against censorship or surveillance policies in general.

I think in this case this fights against the idea that some concepts or experiences are not appropriate for certain ages, and some of them are not currently curatable by parents in a way that they always have been throughout history.