[djoldman]

For kids with a guardian, the answer is enabling and empowering the guardian to control what the child can access.

Somehow we've inappropriately shifted responsibility away from parents/guardians in some areas like internet access.

In other areas, like letting your kid go outside by themselves, we've criminalized reasonable caregiver actions.

It's a wild world.

[trollbridge]

Isn’t that the same argument as “Parents should keep kids away from cigarettes” by tobacco companies who were simultaneously marketing to children?

And parents aren’t in control of children 24/7. Schools tend to provide tablets and laptops everywhere, and how much trust should parents have that things like a content filter are adequate to keep children from asking objectionable pornography, hate sites teaching misogyny and so forth?

[djoldman]

> Isn’t that the same argument as “Parents should keep kids away from cigarettes” by tobacco companies who were simultaneously marketing to children?

I think most would agree that there's a significant difference between a physical product that shortens the lifespan of virtually all humans who use it, and looking at images and video, no matter how extreme.

> And parents aren’t in control of children 24/7. Schools tend to provide tablets and laptops everywhere, and how much trust should parents have that things like a content filter are adequate to keep children from asking objectionable pornography, hate sites teaching misogyny and so forth?

Agreed.

Parents and guardians should definitely be aware of and concerned about what internet filters are in place at schools.

[_w1tm]

> Parents and guardians should definitely be aware of and concerned about what internet filters are in place at schools.

Neither of the words you used give parents any control over the situation. Legislation is the circumspect way parents are exerting control over websites that are unable to police themselves.

[djoldman]

Fair enough. Sounds like legislation may be a good way to enforce internet filtering on school computers.

Schools have traditionally been ground zero for culture war in the USA, so this fits.

[CJefferson]

I do agree there is a significant difference. The images and video are much worse -- one particularly bad video can scar people for months, even years, one cigarette isn't that bad.

[koalaman]

Another way of looking at it, is that when you put the responsibility of protecting a child from harmful content on the parent, you're deciding to only protect the children with the right kind of parent.

[djrj477dhsnv]

I'm fine with that. I'd rather parents make "bad" decisions about protecting their own children than the government forcing their own opinions on them.

[derangedHorse]

Is the “right kind of parent” here synonymous with those that regulate what their children see online?

[djoldman]

What's the right kind of parent?

[ranger_danger]

> reasonable

I think the real issue is that the definition of "reasonable" is subjective and often changes with time/culture/people in charge at the moment.