[miki123211]

I'm against any kind of age verification legislation, but this is a really bad argument.

It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly."

In theory, one could implement age verification by negligent parent imprisonment, in practice, I don't think that would work, and definitely not in all cases.

If we accept the premise that children having unfettered access to the internet is a bad thing (which, again, I don't think we should), there have to be multiple layers to it. Punishment is one, increasing friction and "making honest people honest" is another.

[iamnothere]

“Properly” is the choice of the parent, except in some narrow cases we’ve defined culturally.

The last thing we need is society deciding in detail how children should be raised. CPS horror stories are bad enough as it is.

[ihsw]

CPS horror stories should be the least of your concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s-1990s_Romanian_orphans_p...

[soco]

Nevertheless as a society we do have laws protecting the children, also the adults, on the streets. Why not having or applying laws for the online? Why should we expect or ask that the internet be magically better handled by the parents alone?

[philipallstar]

Because online is global, and you can't have effective local laws against a global system. Parents don't need magic; they just need to watch what their kids use devices for, and keep the devices in public areas of the house.

The main thing the state can do is stop requiring kids to have portable internet-connected devices for state schooling.

[jonhohle]

You are obviously not a parent. I lock down devices, lock down my network, then the public school gives my kid a laptop with access to nearly everything I’ve tried to filter. Even if I can successfully monitor it at home, the device is in their possession and out of my control as a parent for 6-8 hours a day. The government is literally bypassing our family rules and my ability to protect my children in the way I see fit.

For 90% of kids, that’s not going to be an issue and everyone can feel like they’re such a great parent. But for another group of kids, they absolutely cannot handle it and have not developed the executive function to be able to manage access to everything the Internet offers.

In the past we understood this as a society. Broadcasters on public airwaves had standards for what was appropriate. We’ve completely thrown those out in one generation and decided gambling, porn, extremely violence, social and emotional grooming and abuse, and lots more are all OK to give children access to, unchecked and with limited education. It’s really kind of sick.

[pirates]

If your kids are accessing things they know they shouldn’t, and you know they’re doing it anyway, is that it? We’re at an impasse? I really don’t want to tell anyone how to parent, but I’ll say that if I did what you described I would have been punished and/or grounded, because I knew the rules, and I knew I was breaking them.

[jonhohle]

Unfortunately, that’s not how addiction works. It’s hard to punish addiction out of anyone. Different kids have different nature and nurture, and for some kids, consequences don’t matter. I would have judged parent’s in this situation before becoming one. It’s humbling and builds empathy.

What do you do when punishment doesn’t work? When therapy doesn’t work? When strict control doesn’t work? When there is no remorse, shame, fear of repercussion, or ability to anticipate consequences or risk? When the kid has the highest IQ in the house but fails tests and doesn’t turn in homework because they don’t care about anything but their vice? When they literally spend 2 hours a day _at school_ on YouTube and games (among other things) on a device the district mandates they have?

Do you punish a child for years because they can’t function with access most people consider normal? When their siblings have all of the same access and devices and don’t have the same issues and would respond to rules and who would punishment in exactly the way you would describe?

Maybe it’s a parenting issue, but I’d like to think we’ve done far more than most parents could imagine for over a decade and come up short for one of our kids. Meanwhile 3 others are just fine.

[fc417fc802]

What you're describing, combined with the sort of state provided access being described, seems like it would incentivize the child learning how to lie and hide things more effectively. It's absurd that the school would facilitate such broad and directionless access to the internet outside of the parent's supervision. It's directly undermining them.

[twobitshifter]

are the school laptops locked down at all? work laptops are locked down at most corporations and that’s for adults!

[jonhohle]

They are but middle school and high school kids are more creative, have less to lose, and have no concept of long term consequences compared to employees. School district IT is no match for kids with unlimited time, creativity, and access. Bypasses spread faster than memes. AI chatbots are blocked, one of my son’s friends ran a local proxy to his unblocked domain and other kids get local network access to AI. Installers blocked? Get a hacked game loader that looks like an approved binary.

You have a class with 30 kids with gaming (or social media or or porn) devices and a teacher whose just as internet addicted behind their own computer at the front expecting the kids to work on their own through the lesson while they do who knows what.

How much YouTube do you think you can you watch in a a high school PE class? About 50 minutes at today’s public schools. The teacher doesn’t care, the principal doesn’t care, the superintendent doesn’t care, and the school board doesn’t care. As long as the PE teacher’s baseball team does well, who cares, right? (Hi Scottsdale Unified School District! I’m talking about you!)

[philipallstar]

I don't know why you think I'm not a parent. What did I say that made you think that?

[jonhohle]

> they just need to watch what their kids use devices for, and keep the devices in public areas of the house

How do you monitor what a child is using a device for when you don’t have access to the device and they’re at a school that doesn’t care? What device is safe to use, even when in a public area? You’re able to see the screen of all devices I your house at all times? You’re awake at all hours monitoring public areas of the house? Would you think an elementary schooler could get into trouble with an eink Kindle? With an Xbox (beyond gaming to long)? With a school issued Chromebook? What happens when Screen Time fails and the whitelist of allowed sites and limits on time no longer work (as happens several times a year)? What happens when the locked down Chromebook allows arbitrary web access through a log in screen buried deep in help that all the kids know about and despite layers and layers of controls out in place the school device happily ignores them all and lets children do whatever they want?

The idea that a child can be given a device and that they could be monitored 24/7 suggests you don’t have kids, they don’t have any technology in their life, you don’t know what they and/or their friends are actually doing, or you only have children like my daughter. I suppose if everyone was like her I’d be naive to what most kids are doing as well.

[goalieca]

> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly."

Define “properly” and how often do the self-righteous themselves cause harm. I see a strong desire for people to want to “control” all outcomes on everything and have everyone in the world think and say and act as they want.

[iamnothere]

Yes but you see, my views are the correct ones and should be the only allowable views. Other people who want this are controlling and their evil views are simply wrong. If you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person.

[pretzel5297]

We don't hold parents responsible for most neglect. Why is this special?

[SeanDav]

I would hardly define allowing your child access to the internet as neglect. Like anything else, like crossing the street for example, there are dangers that can be mitigated against by education by parents and schools.

The government is vastly overreaching in this and quite frankly if one argues that this is a good thing, then where to draw the line? Will we want to see government legislation for every possible permutation of potentially harmful behaviours or consequences.

Sorry Johnny can't come out to play because I have not yet bought the latest government-legislated knee guard armour to prevent a graze, and BTW I notice that you have not renewed the foam coating on your sidewalk, if Johnny trips and falls there...

[jonhohle]

Imagine having unrestricted access to meth. For the vast majority of the population, they’d continue to be productive members of society. For some, limited use might help them function better. But for a few, it would completely decimate their lives and impact the lives of many around them. They have absolutely no ability to manage their use, and oh, yeah, they’re also children.

Some will experience a significant down regulation of dopamine receptors caused by the constant artificial reward stimulus. As tolerance builds, more is needed for longer to get the same response, while the ability to function normally becomes more difficult. That’s screen addiction, not meth.

We regulate most things with that potential, even if it only affects a small percentage. About 1% of the population struggles with meth. 6-10% with internet related addictions and more like 40% among youth.

120 years ago, opium, alcohol, marijuana were a free for all. There was similar opposition to their control. Now it’s accepted as a public health benefit and most people would probably be shocked at how recent these became regulated.

My elementary aged kids can’t use “safe search” without being exposed to pornography, extreme violence, Five Nights at Epstein’s, flat earther’s, etc. Tech company’s have failed to create a safe product and when that goes on for long enough, the government steps in.

[fc417fc802]

Worth pointing out that there are people (such as myself) opposed to the current drug regulations who will be put off by your meth example. The key detail is the part where it's being provided to children - in this case with the help of the school!

People will debate all day what should and shouldn't be regulated for adults but it seems the vast majority agree on shielding children from having potentially harmful things actively pushed onto them by strangers.

[amazingamazing]

Does UK not have equivalent to CPS?

[zimpenfish]

We do - https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system - but, at least in England, as with most governmental functions, it's been slashed to near death by years of austerity and "small government" lunacy.

[philipallstar]

It's not lunacy. It's the parents' child, not the state's.

[zimpenfish]

> It's the parents' child, not the state's.

And who should look out for the child's interests if the parents can't or won't?

[philipallstar]

Who decides what the child's interests are?

[heresie-dabord]

> It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly."

Nor can it, because it takes a village to raise a human being.

And in this (global) village, we have determined that we will monetise everything... and for the victims, there's thoughts and prayers. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers

[verisimi]

Is your child my child? Should I involve myself in how you choose to bring up the child, if you espouse ideas I disagree with?

[heresie-dabord]

It depends on the harm that you witness. Your question does imply your awareness that parents are not/may not be intellectually (or even morally) competent.

In no Western society that I can name are parents omnipotent owners of their children. Parents may even lose custody of their children. If you know that parents are doing physical harm to children, you have a social obligation to try to do something for those children.

Even though we may turn a blind eye, we do have a social obligation to all children. Human anthropological history reflects this.

Although intellectual harm tends to be seen as sunken cost (and possibly "correctable"), social harm has intolerable consequences.

[verisimi]

No one is an omnipotent owner of anyone, not even the community, not even the government.

If you strip away conventions bound in law, governance the idea of community, and go to basics: if I see something going on that troubles me, I should take whatever action I think is appropriate. No 'community', no man made laws required.

[cowpig]

We should be involving our community members more in the exchange of ideas, and digital sources of information quite a bit less.

[verisimi]

Why? I certainly don't think as highly of my community as you seem to. But really, what is the value you personally get from opening up your life to your community?

[SeanDav]

It has always been the responsibility of parents to raise their children "properly" (whatever that means). What is special about internet access that now requires the government to legislate for it, and as a side-effect, greatly reduce the privacy of the rest of the population. This is without even addressing the argument that these measures may even make the privacy situation for children worse.

[throwthrowuknow]

These systems won’t work any better than identification requirements for alcohol and tobacco or anything else. Maybe you didn’t know anyone who drank or smoked when you were a teenager but they are pretty widespread even when parents aren’t negligent. Systems like the proposed ones will be even easier for kids to find a way around.

I’m somewhat in favour of these foolish attempts at control because they always drive innovation in technology to circumvent them and adoption of that technology creating a thriving underground scene. Content piracy and alternative platforms could use a resurgence and this is just the thing to get it jumpstarted.

[fc417fc802]

I agree that the recent craze about internet ID checks are foolish but your example falls on its face. ID checks to purchase goods at a physical location are actually quite effective. They don't achieve perfect compliance but that's not a fatal flaw (or even necessarily any flaw at all despite what people might say).

[throwthrowuknow]

Disagree completely, they were easily bypassed and I think they’re probably more easily bypassed today.

[Xelbair]

>It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly."

Like with normal cases - have court go over this.

But decision if any form of age lock should be implemented or not is up to parents. You cannot just shift argument to "you HAVE to restrict children from internet or else!"

[pocksuppet]

What about the California version, where the government says you HAVE to offer parents the choice to restrict their children from the internet or not? That seems like a pretty reasonable middle ground, and solves the actual problems without denying privacy.

[pjmlp]

Since it is fashionable tiktok subject nowadays, you do it like genx and boomers.

We turned out alright.