[jubilee33]

Free access to information is non negotiable. You can dress it up in whatever argument you like; safety, intellectual property rights, moral imperatives. Take your pick. Information will not be held back, it wasn't held back by any tyrannical regime of the past with much more asymmetrical access to control, not the banning of the printing press, the efforts of the Stasi to ban western music in East Germany, nor China's more recently attempted "Great Firewall", have worked. This also will not work.

I am not worried for myself and for others who are technically inclined, we will just silently find and implement solutions for ourselves and any others who have the energy and inclination to use them. This is worst, as usual, for the most vulnerable among us. Those most in need of the information which they will not be able to access. Every freedom comes with risks and responsibilities, freedom of information maybe more than any, but the harms of limiting information are much more unacceptable than any caused by its unhindered natural flow. You can propagandize and scheme to your hearts content. You can lobby your governments to implement your halfbaked schemes. But in the end it won't work... Because people like me and millions of other will just not comply. We will build our own networks if need be, but we will do just about anything rather than accept your terms.

[stubish]

These absolutist arguments will never be taken seriously. Almost everyone can find some form of information they want held back, criminalized and punished for enabling. 'Information wants to be free' died in the 90s when people realized some of the extreme crap this meant and decided to cast out from their societies. Of course it can't be stopped, but it can certainly be outlawed.

[jonhohle]

> Free access to information is non negotiable.

For adults.

There is information and images that are developmentally harmful to children. As the author says, this is no different from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or gambling.

If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, have a screw loose, or are a child predator.

[iron_pi]

Alcohol is a great comparison to access to the internet.

Firstly lets be honest to ourselves, who gives kids access to alcohol? It is the parents ultimately. You cannot freely access alcohol in public without a venue offering it, but at home a parent can choose if and how much alcohol their kids have access to. Typically kids who have alcohol in public had taken it from home. There are societal morals that rightfully we consider reckless depending on how much access you give your kids to alcohol.

Now replace the word alcohol with 'the internet' in the last paragraph. The internet is already moderated for kids, they cannot buy access to it, and it is the parents responsibility to manage that. Since when did this change to being the governments job to dictate this moral and its implementation.

Parents just need the right tools to properly moderate their kids access, some of us had this from our parents decades ago with software managing content and time on the internet, I doubt these tools disappeared. The government should be facilitating programs like this. The cost would be substantially less and entirely opt-in, as it should be.

I as a parent should be able to put my kids device into a parental mode that allows me to manage what they have access to and for how long, the same way the Nintendo Switch works. I should be able to control the content my kids sees, not the government. The government can help me enable this across industry without forcing the world into an authoritarian regime using the vile of keeping kids safe.

[jonhohle]

Tell me you don’t have children without telling me you don’t have children.

What happens when your child’s school or library doesn’t restrict the devices they give your child when outside of your home? What happens when predators infest children’s games and platforms you expected to be safe? What happens when your idea of safety doesn’t align with the platform holder?

[greycol]

You're out here advocating for draconian restrictions on all adults because you don't want to have to deal with placing similar restrictions on either your kids or yourself.

You just listed multiple places where you could be applying targeted restrictions to get the effect you espouse but instead are advocating for tracking on any art or conversations that could be deemed offensive to the most reactionary busy body.

The worst part is this age gating won't actually work, 18 year olds know 17 year olds know 16 year olds... No age verification is going to stop kids accessing whatever most offends your sensibilities, the point of being a good parent is being involved enough in a kids life that you can notice and stop excesses in bad behaviour early and encourage doing positive actions and forming good habits constantly because you and they can't succeed all the time, but you don't need to.

Arguing for these restrictions is the same logic that arguing that burkas should be mandatory because clearly if woman don't appear attractive there would be less sexual crime against woman rather than putting the impetus on the ones committing the crime. You may be right in that it occasionally achieves the goal but it's a horrendous way to do it and you make the world a worse place for those you're claiming you want to help.

Also "What happens when your idea of safety doesn’t align with the platform holder?" You seem to be arguing against yourself as you're saying that individual's preferences don't align with other groups but want to align standards based on distinct age groups mandated by the government.

[krunck]

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, *have a screw loose, or are a child predator.*

Ad Hominem

[teddyh]

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, have a screw loose, or are a child predator.

“Anyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant, insane, or evil.”

[jonhohle]

In this case probably ignorant.

If you ever talked to a parents with children in elementary schools, you will quickly learn that nearly every one of them had been given an online porn, gambling, gaming, social media device by their school. This is not hypothetical.

[troyvit]

> There is information and images that are developmentally harmful to children.

Yeah it's called "advertising."

[psd1]

> If you can’t understand that, you either don’t have children, have a screw loose, or are a child predator.

This is not helpful, don't do it. GP likely has to suppress the urge to call you a stalinist.

GP comment made it clear that they are a free-internet absolutist. You can make no conclusions beyond that.

Absolutism is daft; attack that, if you must.

[jonhohle]

The idea that free access to all information should be available to all people is absolutism. I agree that’s daft.

At least I gave some options.

[psd1]

People have different value systems, and some topics put those in opposition. That is why this debate is so immovable.

No, i don't want kids exposed to snuff and porn and cognitohazards. But be fair: the middle ages was not an extinction event, despite public hangings, single-room family dwellings, and satanic panic.

No, i don't want a sanitised internet. But the internet today is mostly moats and trackers; anarchy lost. Techno-libertarianism needs to understand itself as a counter-culture and find or build a new space for itself, because nobody normal gives a shit if they get bulldozed.

[domy]

Except, of course, implementing age gates means that suddenly _everyone_ has to authenticate, not just kids. And maybe things like gambling shouldn’t be allowed altogether.

[jonhohle]

I didn’t say anything about an age gate. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of saying all that all information should be absolutely accessible to all people. No one believes that in the absolute. If you do, please share your social security number, bank account information, PIN numbers, and mother’s maiden name.

By having a discussion about privacy we’re already saying some information _must_ be kept confidential.

[nyanmatt]

Let's point out the absurdity that saying "all information must be accessible" is synonymous with "all information must be disclosed". These are not congruent statements.

[jonhohle]

I’m in violent agreement that not all information should be disclosed to all people.

[jubilee33]

You can sling any names you like. I addressed the "safety" aspect. It's not only disingenuous it wouldn't matter if it's sincere. This position is non negotiable, and I say this as a parent myself. Your children's development is your responsibility, it is not your right to deprive others of their freedom due to your fear. I was lucky enough to have a library of real books as a child in my home, many if them "inappropriate" for children whatever that means. The 1990s unfiltered internet came next. I was most definitely more enriched than harmed. I'm frankly tired of this argument and I just won't accept it being repeated as truth, especially when its irrelevant to the core premise.

[jonhohle]

One of my children reads, no joke, 150-200 books a year (not including graphic novels). Does that mean every book ever written is developmentally appropriate (or even ethically appropriate) for him? Of course not.

We’ve seen this play out dozens of times. School boards will say no book should be banned and then a parent tries to read a book from their child’s school library during open comment and their mic is shut off while the board shrieks in horror.

That’s OK! Children are not adults. They haven’t developed the executive function or mental guards to deal with all content. As adults we protect them from things. Information is no different.

[iamnothere]

Oh, which books would you ban from kids?