Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teenagers and the Internet

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#71

Post by ta_1378992718 »

DanBC wrote: post #66
ta_1378992718 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are in favor of the current remediation against teenagers that sext, which is generally to bring the recipient up on charges of possession of child pornography and the sender on charges of making and distributing child pornography? Such felony convictions will have far more ramifications that the act itself ever could.

That doesn't happen in my country. The US legal system is a cluster fuck of horrible practice, and it's not just weird application of sexting laws that's the problem.

That this doesn't happen where you come from is good. It is the reason for arguing for a different status for these things for teenagers in America, though. More than a few lives have been destroyed in applying these laws to those they were supposed to protect.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#72

Post by _mulder_ »

3pt14159 wrote: post #11

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary h…

'Having the internet' is different to the ubiquitous internet access that kids growing up today are subject to. Twenty years ago you couldn't take out a smart phone and watch porn. You couldn't even readily download porn videos, images perhaps if you were lucky. Even so you were unlikely to have unrestricted access to your own computer with internet access, so watching porn was a special event when the parents were asleep or out. A kid today could pull up porn on their phone right now without a second thought. And it's that 'without a second thought' that is the (slightly) disturbing bit, because it happens before kids develop a proper sense of right and wrong.

If I'm honest and I think back to the playground when I was younger, I am sure my understanding of what's right and wrong would be different (worse in my opinion) than they are today.

On the other-hand I'm in favour of free-speech, but then I also think banning kids from disruptive influences (alcohol, smoking) is also an effective means of keeping kids safe until they can take full responsibility for their actions.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#73

Post by lotsofcows »

ttt_ wrote: post #23
3pt14159 wrote: post #11

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary h…

>> Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Much akin to "when we were kids we rode in the front seat without seat belts on, we turned out fine", and several other versions of that phrase. I don't think it's a valid argument at all.

Normally that's a valid complaint but it's pretty obvious in this case that by fine he means "not so addicted to his 'phone or porn that it has a negative effect on his life".

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#74

Post by mattdeboard »

themstheones wrote: post #55
bennyg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your point's valid either. Driving is operating heavy machinery, plain and simple. Driving without a seatbelt is totally different than using Facebook, or eBay, or Craigslist, unrestricted. They really couldn't be more dissimilar.

No one is going to get into trouble on craigslist. What's the worst that could happen, buying a couch with bedbugs?

Oh dear, you really don't know much about Craigslist do you?

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#75

Post by superuser2 »

nissimk wrote: post #31
3pt14159 wrote: post #11

I've had the internet for twenty years (since I was 8) and computer access since I was 3. Most of my friends had access since they were 10 or 11. We turned out fine. Some kids who have poor role models are going to ask for oral sex from boys or girls that like them. This was true 3000 years ago. It is true today. It will be true twenty years from now regardless of what silly idea the person who made the documentary h…

I'm very upset that this is the top comment on here. 14 year old teenagers are definitely children and they do need to be protected by law from predators. Just because they are old enough to have children of their own doesn't make them adults. Is not OK for sites or individuals to be collecting sexual images of children and distributing them. Also, to all you folks on here saying that this is all fear mongering to ta…

I don't believe he was addressing sites collecting child pornography, rather stating that teenagers shouldn't be going to prison for sending each other images of themselves.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#76

Post by barrkel »

DanBC wrote: post #67
barrkel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is this binary label of children | not-children, which then gives rise to infantilizing treatment. The post you're responding to was splitting the spectrum into at least three parts, children | teenagers | adults, while you're arguing for children | adults - or at least that's how it looks. But I think you're on the wrong track there. Something that is closer to modelling a spectrum is bet…

But laws tend not to involve vague undefined gradients - and when they do people complain. Thus: You can drive when you're X, even if some people are perfectly capable of driving earlier and others need a few years to mature.

There's a lot of room in the justice system for discretion at various levels. The law isn't absolute like that in practice.

I'm more complaining about people - allegedly human - making black and white distinctions. Actually, what I'm more upset about is people working from this self-serving system of "logic":

  [general problem] -> [label]+ -> [general action]
For example, saying that casual sharing of media is copyright violation, which is theft, theft is bad and should be punished harshly, thus casual sharing of media should be punished harshly.

It bottle-necks the ambiguity of the real world through a single specific label - ideally one stuck at one end of the spectrum - and thereafter applying a consequence from that label. It's a corrupt mode of thought to my mind.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#77

Post by nissimk »

ta_1378992718 wrote: post #59
DanBC wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They arn't children. They are teenagers. Have you ever met a teenager? They're fucking idiotic. That's why we don't let them drink alcohol or vote or get married or have sex or join the army or a bunch of other stuff. > You know those dirty letters you got from your sweetheart when you were 17? Sexting is the same damn thing. No it isn't. A dirty letter is a dirty letter. A photo sent via sms has lasting consequenc…

So, you are in favor of the current remediation against teenagers that sext, which is generally to bring the recipient up on charges of possession of child pornography and the sender on charges of making and distributing child pornography? Such felony convictions will have far more ramifications that the act itself ever could.

I think if the sender and recipient in your described scenario are consenting then they should not be charged with these laws. That is not the intent of those laws. Even if the recipient is not consenting, the sender should also be charged with some other sort of harassment. But if the recipient forwards or shares the image in any way then they probably should receive the severe distribution charge.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#78

Post by _mulder_ »

mavhc wrote: post #65
orf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free and unlimited access to hardcore pornography of any type when you are in your early teens is relatively new. No generation has been exposed to such a stream of heavily sexualized content before, both online and offline. I mean the porn of 50 years ago seems tame by todays standards. Exposing children to such adult themes before they have even fully developed can't be a good thing.

When you lived in a roundhouse 3000 years ago with all your family in 1 room you didn't see anything sexual?

Yeh, I can imagine it was exactly like a scene from Dumpster Anal Teens

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#79

Post by superuser2 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #35
acallaghan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 60's the teenager label emerged. These were just kids that had found a sense of community in sharing music, rebellion against the system, and unique dress. There's nothing new here. Teenagers will be rebellious, as they always have. If the older people in society find ways to prevent them from accessing material they want to see, they'll just find another way. Teenagers have their own tastes in what the intern…

And yet, before the 60's and before the rise of proper education, teenagers went to work after elementary school (if that) and became mature, responsible adults much sooner. At least, so I heard. They couldn't get together and have orgies or whatever, because they were expected to be either at work, or back at work at 6 AM. [/faux history teacher]

Work now requires more education. A PhD student is not less mature than a bachelors student just because he's in school for more years. He doesn't lose the right to make decisions for himself.

Prolonging the socially defined period of childhood didn't magically rewire brain chemistry.

Re: Teenagers and the Internet

#80

Post by nissimk »

superuser2 wrote: post #75
nissimk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very upset that this is the top comment on here. 14 year old teenagers are definitely children and they do need to be protected by law from predators. Just because they are old enough to have children of their own doesn't make them adults. Is not OK for sites or individuals to be collecting sexual images of children and distributing them. Also, to all you folks on here saying that this is all fear mongering to ta…

I don't believe he was addressing sites collecting child pornography, rather stating that teenagers shouldn't be going to prison for sending each other images of themselves.

Apparently this really is a problem: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-17/local/38616662...

It is a fine line though and it sounds like a lot of states are trying to solve this.

Post reply on HN