[LunicLynx]

Maybe this is about time. It’s pretty clear that the internet as such is not and never has been for children.

But the way it is done is weird for sure.

But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents or peer pressure the issue that breaks the intent?

Or is your point that the internet should be used by children?

If so how do you propose restricting the harmful content?

From my point of view we are in the digital Middle Ages. We do not yet understand if this global connection is actually being good or bad in the long run. The only thing that starts to crystallize is that it isn’t great for children. Specifically social media, especially especially people gaining access to children on troves to spread ideology.

So how to solve it. And „I don’t like the current approach“ without having a better idea is not a solution.

[engeljohnb]

> But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents

You make it a burden on the parents, like all parenting always has been.

In my opinion, US culture losing sight of this is part of why our country is spinning down the drain. Combining Ipad kids with "what do you mean my child is failing? Isn't it your job to fix that?" I suspect has lead to a populace that can't think for themselves.

Being willing to give up your online anonymity to be surveiled online and not only beliving it's not a problem, but really thinking it's to protect children is another result of this.

[choo-t]

>But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents

Why should we aim to do that ? Who give internet-enables device to their children? In most cases, who give pay for their internet access?

> So how to solve it. And „I don’t like the current approach“ without having a better idea is not a solution.

Defining the problem, and if it exist altogether should be a good start. I'm not even sure the problem is defined, even less it need a solution so badly that we should kill everyone privacy for it.

[spicyusername]

I don't think it's a given that this can't be partly or mostly policed by parents if they were provided good tools to do so.

As it is all of the parental controls on all devices, apps, and services are extremely lackluster.

So I'd argue legally required, granular, parental controls and empowering parents would be a much better start to resolving this issue compared to blatant government privacy overreach.

[like_any_other]

Nonsense. They've already passed so many laws giving parents easy-to-use tools to manage their kids internet access, and other laws that make unlocking internet access for children that aren't yours just as illegal as buying them alcohol.

It was only after all of that failed, with no measurable effect, that our governments, reluctantly and as a last resort, proposed these privacy-destroying measures. And even then, they respected their citizens' rejection of these proposals [1].

I mean I didn't actually check that this is how it went, but with all the lecturing about "democracy" from our rulers, surely that's how they went about it, right?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707719

[LunicLynx]

I could accept that there shouldn’t be content for children on the internet, at all, to make this an easy sell.

Parents will not solve this. They would need to first care and then to be as tech savvy as the people in this forum. And then all the content would need to be attributed correctly. If if if, and here we are

[soulofmischief]

You're engaging with the wrong argument. "Think of the children" is meant to confuse and diffuse discourse around what is happening. The argument which actually reflects the true intention of your politicians and lobbyists with respect to this issue is an argument of free access to information by anyone, including children.

I was raised in am extremely oppressive and abusive religious household. I would not be who I am today if I didn't have access to opinions outside of those shoved down my throat. I couldn't even listen to radio stations that weren't corporate soft rock or Christian music.

The internet was the only free space I had. Without it, I would certainly have killed myself as a child, rather than continue to submit to violent physical and religious abuse.

If we would stop blindly reacting with short-term thinking to each issue in turn that Corpgov presents us, and actually think deeply about what kind of future we'd like to build for those after us, it becomes radically clear that both the problem and solution as presented to us are actually detrimental in the long term.

[LunicLynx]

I don’t disagree with what you are saying but it isn’t a solution to the problem. And the problem is about the children.

Without trying to offend you, but you are arguing this as: we don’t need to regulate alcohol or drugs because experiences, for everyone, will be better in the end…

[odyssey7]

If free speech is a drug, it’s a tonic against dictators and tyrants.

Terribly ironic that this is up for a vote at the time of the United State's 250th birthday.

[soulofmischief]

> I don’t disagree with what you are saying but it isn’t a solution to the problem. And the problem is about the children.

You may have skipped over the part in my comment where I pointed out that this "problem" is ostensible at best, and is literally, intentionally presented in a way for you and others to remain engaged with that problem, talking loudly about it while others are trying to actually discuss the real problem being buried underneath:

Our corporate neoliberal authoritarian fascist governments are closing in fast to secure the surveillance state and consolidate their power through an unprecedented level of State control over our lives.

Again, "The children" is not the problem. That is literally the trojan horse being delivered to you through a type of propaganda which has already been well-documented.

> you are arguing this as: we don’t need to regulate alcohol or drugs because experiences, for everyone, will be better in the end…

I never made such an argument, or implied such an argument. What you've done here is present a complete straw man argument instead of critically engaging with the actual argument I've just made, which is that you're falling for corporate and government propaganda and taking up space serving their goals, instead of trying to serve the goals of your own society; and that's the twisted part, you think that you're doing exactly that by entertaining and fueling the "Think of the children" argument.

But in order to not be a sucker, you have to harness that desire to do the right thing and peel back the layers of deception. Fighting the right fight. And not misconstruing valid arguments by saying, "Oh well you just don't want anything to be regulated at all, do you! You want kids to be able to freely access heroin?"

Which, ignoring the fact that ~100 years ago you could go buy a heroin tincture at the pharmacy for your children, this is just a false dichotomy. The options are not between "require children (And adults! That's the point!) to show ID before freely accessing information" and "let the kids shoot up heroin".

[lbnzuni]

> But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents

Yea wouldn’t want to have parents be involved and managing what their kids interact with. What?