[prolly97]

At least half of the people in this thread survived growing up with access to social without age verification.

And I'm pretty sure we've all had an encounter with some creep in some random chat room too.

We talked about these things at school and at home. Don't share things with people you don't know etc. Idk if it's illegal to tell kids what to do these days. But when I grew up, we were occasionally also told to get off the computers and touch grass.

I hope I'll get to raise my future kids myself. I think I can do a better job than the government :)

[lugu]

Soon enough you will realize that kids spend more time with their friends than with their parents. Most parents want their kids to be curious, build autonomy, and feel free. For this to work, they need a safe space. There are to place to enforce a policy: client side (parental control) or server side (age verification). Personally I don't want to transform my kids general purpose computer into a locked down infotainment machine. I think it would be a worst society if the norm becomes "this is not your device".

[201984]

How are kids supposed to have a safe space "to be curious, build autonomy, and feel free" if they can't get out from the authoritarian hands of their parents or their government?

[pocksuppet]

Good question. Maybe we can find the answer by getting them drunk at the strip club - two things that we'd be authoritarians if we prevented children from accessing.

[201984]

As if there's no difference between harmful substances combined with lewd activity, and talking with people on a video game.

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/01/uk-considering-banning-kids-s...

[bluegatty]

"we've all had an encounter with some creep in some random chat room to"

My parents generation survived lead in gasoline and they never wore seatbelts or helmets.

"I think I can do a better job than the government :)"

Is exactly what their parents said about the government telling them they have to get their kids to wear seat belts and helmets.

I don't think this argument works for two reasons:

1) It don't address the materiality of the concern.

If 'creeps in chat rooms' are causing material harm, it's an issue, then youre making the 'anti vaxxer' / 'anti seatbelt' / 'anti helmet' argument.

I'm not saying you are - if 'creeps in chatrooms' really is a 'lesser issue' - then you're not making a bad argument at all.

The real issue is the 'materiality' of these things.

'Creeps in chatrooms' is a harder thing to assess, but it's real, if it is real, we can't just dismiss it.

2) "I think I can do a better job than the government "

If someone wants to protest the governments current age restrictions cigarettes - and also not vaccinate their kids - that's a choice.

But this argument is usually made by people who don't have kids in their life and haven't yet realized that 'the all or nothing internet' is not really a choice, it's chaos.

Lack of very basic regulations means people aren't afforded the opportunity, in a way the government is dictating that 'kids will get guns and porn and that's it'.

The alternative argument - is that we can have age restrictions and parents can then be in a position to actually be parents, and make a choice.

'Slippery slope notwithstanding' ... because it's a complciated issue

[mx7zysuj4xew]

Yes and that chaos is called freedom

   haven't yet realized that 'the all or nothing internet' is not really a choice, it's chaos.

[protocolture]

>At least half of the people in this thread survived growing up with access to social without age verification.

I was like 8 - 10 years old, I wandered into the "Adults Only" chat room on Microsoft Networks (Oh sweet, I thought, they have a small pen to keep the boring adults in, better check on them) and said "Hi everyone my name is X and I am Y years old" and everyone was nice to me and said hello. I got bored and left.