981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can happen sometimes. I down voted the comment after reading only the first sentence but then corrected it to an upvote after reading the rest. Not sure if many people have an attention span long enough to do something like this.
Even noticing the sarcasm, it just seems a bit... unnecessary? It interrupts a discussion without adding much, so to me just seems snarky for no good reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>same way we handle knives I'm pretty sure most kids older than 12 do have access to kitchen knives. And actively use them too. I generally agree with your point. But at the same time access to the internet resouces and to gun or a chaisaw is not the same. I have no problem securing a few items if my home, but I have no control over whatever is available on the net. Sure, I can write some firewall rules or create "ki…
> I'm pretty sure most kids older than 12 do have access to kitchen knives. And actively use them too. True, and it's the parents responsibility to ensure that children won't injure themselves with the knives, or take them out or to school or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could engineer the feed to maximize user satisfaction, rather than maximizing usage.
But what if maximum satisfaction causes maximum usage? If you make the perfect feed that shows someone exactly what they want to see at every moment, people are going to use that all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really isn't as simple as "Just be a better parent". To use my nephews as an example, my sisters take good care to make sure there's no device usage at home. They've got dumb phones, my sisters don't use their smartphones around the kids either unless it's to take a call, TV/screen time is extremely limited (1h on Saturdays). The older one (12) has an iPhone with parental controls on and tuned to the max, no Youtu…
Similarly, one of your nephews has a friend with parents that don’t lock their liquor cabinet, which means despite all the laws not allowing sales of alcohol to minors, they still have access to it. I think what your sisters are doing is fine—they’re sending a signal to their kids that this stuff isn’t “good” and though they’ll undoubtedly encounter it in the world, they’re now going to be inherently biased a certain…
Funnily enough that's how I ended up getting drunk the first time, a friend stole some liquor from their parent's liquor cabinet :p We both ended up in a lot of trouble over it, him more than me obviously.
But that's sort of the point as well, if they go down that route then it's easier to catch them and it's easier to punish them for their actions. It's also much more obvious that what they're doing is the wrong thing because it involves a lot of sneaking around, deception and even stealing from your own parents. It makes kids less willing to do it in the first place (unless you're a dumbass like my friend and I).
With something like a smartphone, your parents might not let you have one but every single other kid around you has one, so at that point it only becomes an arbitrary rule that your parents imposed on you, and not a wider rule that everyone has to adhere to. If we treated smartphones for children similarly to how we treat alcohol or tobacco, the parents would have a much easier time enforcing these rules.
> ...they’re now going to be inherently biased a certain way
Or they could go the complete opposite way as well. I mean it's the most common trope/facet of being a kid, that stage of rebellion against your parents and their rules. You still have that with things like alcohol and tobacco of course, but at that point it becomes rebellion against society et al which is a bigger deal and harder hurdle to get over than rebelling against your parents and their rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an argument against any mass collection/concentration of data in anyone's hands. Not against gov. collection of data in particular.
Sure, there's a good reason to avoid centralizing data in general but in this case we're talking about governments. Governments are particularly dangerous for mass data collection because they also come with the authority, and military, of a state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t mind having some kind of law that restricts any minor from using social media whatsoever. Because I wish the current generation of children to have a somewhat worry-free childhood like I had.
Ok but EVERY generation wants to project its childhood on to the next one and is upset that the new generation is absolutely ruined by modern culture viewing its own history, mostly forgotten, with rose-tinted glasses. You can find thousands of years old testament to how the children are being destroyed by modern culture, and each new generation thinks THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT. (and people will agree with this and say…
seems like this time it may actually be different. and peer reviewed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
incongruent. first you say "pornography is just pretext" then say "it's like real world now". where in "real world" can preteen kids go and see not just porn but people limbs removed and other stuff? pretending the actual issue doesn't exist will not help you stop laws like this
The pornography is a real issue, but not the real issue. As many people have noted, a different system could delegate the enforcement to parents. Instead of forcing a web site (or an OS!) to collect identifying information and certify the age, we could demand that a web site would send a header stating the legal age boundary. The user's device then would be demanded to honor it, depending on device's settings . Paren…
the parents thing doesn't work. it's one thing if parents don't give a shit if their child sees absolutely horrible stuff (in US those parents probably lose custody these days). it's another thing if parents aren't even aware that their child watches it while quiet in the bedroom. which is the problem here.
"we could demand that a web site would send a header stating the legal age boundary" can be interesting. start a petition go talk to your representstive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system. Goverments should only focus on educating parents (available tools, recommendations) and maybe provide some open source tooling for parents.
> agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system We also have to consider that "children" covers anywhere from birth to approximately 18 years old. It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more indep…
Nonsense. What kind of nanny state? Of course parent is a nanny because they growing and taking care of their own children. This has been for this way for centuries. Nanny state is the oppposite when state is reponsible for growing your kids.
You didn't explain how "Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd," or how "would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents".
> It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more independence.
its easy to moderate or at least limit access to internet for kids. - less than 5 years then have no own phone - less than 10 years most likely also don't have own phone if have don't need sim but only wifi (parent control wifi and router) - more than 15 years -> no control anyway and this age limitation trying not to limit above 15 years in most countries anyway - between 10-15 you can just not sell simcards for those ages less than 15. Parents decide if will buy such simcard for their kids. Allow buy kid like simcard that restrict access to social media. You need unrestricted simcard that you can get only if you are >15 years old or your parent will buy for you. Sure it wont restrict everything but will limit access significantly
Other solutios are treating flu with HIV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Translation: you can't parent your own child so you want the government to do it, as if they'll do it properly.
Who needs age of consent laws, you should just parent your kids! If they are having sex with people they shouldn't, you've just been a bad parent