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.
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.
Coelacanth@feddit.nu 10 hours ago
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 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.
Coelacanth@feddit.nu 9 hours ago
Agreed.
lath@piefed.social 9 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 8 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.
lath@piefed.social 4 hours ago
That’s nice, but here’s what you miss: neither you nor the government are supposed to be all that can be when it comes to child development.
On one side there’s government excess, but on the other there’s also parenting excess. As one person, any one parent is not qualified to give their hypothetical child the best education they would deserve or objectively decide the levels of information they would need, appropriate to their age. They simply lack the qualifications.
Your comment would be hailed by anti-vaxxers. “I know better! The government can’t force me to vaccinate my children!” Also by domestic abusers. “My daddy beat me with their belt until my bum was bleeding and i turned out just fine! I’ll be damned if the government can tell me how to raise my kid!”
Now you might say “I wouldn’t do something like that”, but what makes you more trustworthy than the government? Being their parent? There’s that one case being talked in the media which can be used as an example that parents aren’t that trustworthy with the safety of their children.
See, people who really care about kids understand that some government interference is required. That people whose profession is to ensure the wellbeing of children are required. That neither side gets to decide alone what is best for the children.
Your opinion on what is or isn’t damaging to your child isn’t enough. You aren’t trained for that. You haven’t studied for that. And the one who suffers if you’re wrong is the child who will have to live with your mistakes for the rest of their life.
Government overreach isn’t the solution. Government uninvolvement isn’t one either. A job of parents is to gather together and be a communal voice which takes the government to task and demands what is best for children.
But we don’t have that, do we? Because, as a sad fact, a lot of parents are simply inadequate. Else this kind of BS law wouldn’t even be a problem under their watch.