[CJefferson]

There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

[Defletter]

It's morbidly interesting to watch public discourse on what is and isn't considered a solely-parental responsibility. For example, we seem to have more or less accepted that comprehensive sex education should be taught in school (thank goodness), in part because it cannot be assumed that all children have a parent or guardian who can or will teach them these things. And yet this same consideration barely comes up when discussing internet safety.

[chii]

> it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

how/why did children survive all those generations ago where these dangerous things have existed, and all of a sudden, parents are now powerless and unable to parent?

[Mashimo]

Well for one they did not have access to 4k 60 fps incest porn at a moments notice in your pocket.

You had to go to a special store where an adult checked your age.

But I guess the better option would be to give parents the propper tools. For example every OS could have the option to set up a child account, that gives the age range to the app store / website the user visits. And the app store owner and website owner (of a certain size? Not sure) have to implement it. Just like store owners can't sell alcohol or porn mags to underage customers.

[tardedmeme]

That's literally precisely what this bill does.

[CJefferson]

Seriously?

They didn't survive, they died:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041714/united-kingdom-a...