schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 12 hours ago
while protecting them from abuse and exploitation
I don’t even remotely understand this talking point. Like, seriously, I wonder if these people live on the same planet as I do. How is it “abuse and exploitation” to allow someone, of any age, to access something they actively want to access?
lath@piefed.social 12 hours ago
Back in the day there were strip clubs strewn about without much oversight. Us kids wanted to actively access them because we were curious and wanted to see the naked ladies. Do you believe we should have been granted full, unadulterated access to such establishments?
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 4 hours ago
Yes. Do you think children will be traumatized for life by looking at tits?
Ocelot@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
If you honestly believe that, can you give us your full name, age, address and phone number here so we can be sure you are not a malicious person? Don’t worry, it’s for the children safety, so they can know who they are talking to.
lath@piefed.social 7 hours ago
Honestly believe what exactly? I’m not understanding your reply to my comment.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 12 hours ago
Honestly, I wouldn’t see much of a problem with this either. I found it utterly stupid when I was a minor that there were (supposed to be) restrictions on what information I could access, and now that I’ve been an adult for a while, I don’t find it any less stupid and wonder what the big deal would have been.
But whatever the justification for restricting this is, how is it “abuse and exploitation” to let people do the things they actively want to do? Abuse and exploitation are generally things people want not to happen in their lives.
lath@piefed.social 10 hours ago
So you’re telling me you have no issue with allowing your kid to go alone to a strip club, letting them see scantily clad women of dubious age dancing for the pleasure of leering men (mostly), the liberal consumption of alcohol and possibly periphenalia of the illegal and damaging sort and the occasional violence committed by and against the customers, while also leaving them in the company of uninhibited individuals not quite sound of mind?
“Sure buddy, you can go to the strip club! Just remember, only look, no touch or the bouncer gonna throw you out! And if you get into a fight with the other customers, hit them over the head with a bottle or nick ‘em in the groin! Have fun!”
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 hours ago
Well, I don’t have children myself. If I did, I would be able to observe their development and decide for myself which aspects of adult life they are developmentally ready for, and which not; including whether they should have unsupervised access to the Internet. The government doesn’t need to be involved in that.
All of those things have nothing to do with access to information, which is what my argument is limited to. I do think it makes sense to have minimum ages for the consumption of alcohol and other drugs in order to prevent young brains from being damaged or becoming physically addicted. Looking at nudity isn’t by itself damaging or physically addictive; those other things are.
Coelacanth@feddit.nu 12 hours ago
I mean, there is definitely abuse and exploitation happening in online games. Roblox is a well-documented hellhole of predators. But intrusive age verification can’t be the answer.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 12 hours ago
OK, that is probably true. But that wasn’t the talking point in the original article. The vast majority of online interactions, no matter where, are not abuse or exploitation.
Ultimately, the Internet is meant to be a worldwide communication medium that allows everyone to communicate with everyone. That’s literally its central purpose. If parents think their children aren’t developmentally ready to communicate with a wide variety of people, they shouldn’t be giving them access to a communication medium whose entire purpose is to enable them to do so.