[testfrequency]

Everyone says this..it’s not working! The more kids are online, the less traditional parenting is working. It worked when I was younger, I didn’t know any better. Nowadays, a kid can go on Reddit or Roblox and be told otherwise. We had Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica..

..now kids have /r/ihatemyfamily or #fuckeverything

[tacomagick]

So your solution is to deanonymize the whole internet? Also can't teenagers ever vent? I would much rather them use websites such as Reddit or Facebook to socialize instead of Instagram or Tiktok to just scroll endlessly. We should target the social media apps for their predatory algorithms I believe.

[kelseyfrog]

Come up with a solution that works instead of a slogan.

The last person who divulged any details about what he meant when he said 'parents should parent' went on to reveal that parents should learn to manually configure home routers, a solution that is technologically unattainable for most parents. Again I ask, do you have a solution or a slogan?

[mattnewton]

I do not need to have the real secret of immortality to say to the emperor that swallowing mercury is bad.

The burden of proof is on those who put forward a solution.

[kelseyfrog]

You can say as much as you want about burden of proof and the way things should work. But society doesn't care. Trying to play Diplomacy like a chess game is a losing strategy.

[master-lincoln]

maybe do not give your kids self-controlled access to devices with internet access?

Of course that isolates them from their peers who have less caring parents that give them access.

[kelseyfrog]

Cool. A non-viable solution, We'll keep encroaching on privacy. Have it your way.

[mattnewton]

The goal is to encroach on privacy, and those interests are using the children able to do it. There is no “solution” to the children using the internet anonymously problem that will satisfy them. We have to keep fighting for privacy.

[testfrequency]

Look, I don’t disagree. Kids need a safe space to moan. It would be hypocritical of me otherwise, as I spent much of my time in my formative years on ventrilo and various other niche pockets of the internet.

That said, the only cess pool that existed at the time was 4chan - which I avoided, despite actually knowing the founder.

The internet has obviously evolved a lot since, and I feel adults unfairly believe that all persons deserve the fully open internet. We’ve clearly reached beyond the point where most companies care about children, as it’s all profit at the end of the day for engagement. If you keep up with Apple, it’s no surprise they concisely spent a large portion of their precious WWDC showcase on child safety. There’s obvious pressure on them, but I also believe firmly Apple is fully aware the online world cannot behave the same way it has with children having access more easily than ever. It’s not like families share a single desktop computer anymore in the living room where all can see…

My (probably) bad comparison is still vapes and porn. Why should kids be allowed to purchase and view this online, but if they went into a retail store they would be denied? Why the double standard? Why immediately presume it’s about tracking adults? What proof do we have that identity verification is leading to adults being scrutinised and tracked? It all just feels like a tin foil hat fan fiction that has no proven purpose other than conspiracy and proof that every person should never be restricted, regardless of age.

[tacomagick]

Blocking acess to porn sites is as easy as setting up a firewall, my phone carrier has a feature called family shield, Google Parental Tools lets you see which websites your kid accessed, and restrict them. You do not need to ID everyone in order to let them access the internet. Did the past generations never got their hands on porn back then? Of course they did one way or another. Same with vapes or cigarettes or alcohol. There will always be a website out there that will provide free porn with no ID restriction residing in god knows where. This ID verification is useless and while it appears to be in good faith unfortunately it is not. I'd recommend watching a few videos about this such as this one from Louis Rossmann

https://youtu.be/Xa3-TkHBh90

In the end, yes there is a possibility that this won't happen, but there is a much bigger possibility that it will happen based on the track record of past bills.