Poll of the Day > So, some states are trying to pass new internet laws (KOSA) or something

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/kids_online_safety_act_-_one_pager.pdf

Honestly, kids shouldn't be online anyway.

Some of that sounds somewhat reasonable, other parts are the sort of vague "something should be done about this!" sort of suggestions that always come from people who recognize that Interwebs can be a problem but don't know enough about it to recognize the actual issues or make more constructive suggestions.

My usual stance is that any argument or proposition that involves "think of the children" as part of its justification is probably objectively wrong. Because it almost always is.



papercup posted...

Honestly, kids shouldn't be online anyway.

At this point it's pretty much a necessity that they need to be, in order to become functioning adults.

Maybe we just need to create a separate Internet for kids. And every kid has to take a driver's license-like test to be allowed on the adult Internet.

(of course, if we DID that all the pedos would just make fake kid accounts to hang out there anyway, so it would take a lot of policing)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

My usual stance is that any argument or proposition that involves "think of the children" as part of its justification is probably objectively wrong. Because it almost always is.

"think of the children" is the foundation of neo-fascism

Lokarin posted...

"think of the children" is the foundation of neo-fascism

Unfortunately, people who use "fascism" as part of their argument are also usually wrong. And bad.

It's basically the trendy way to accuse someone of being a Nazi without having them throwing Godwin's Law in your face - it's almost always emotional rhetoric from immature armchair pundits.

It's not even a new thing, Red Dwarf was making fun of that sort of mentality back in the 1980s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfFSlQ9zv9w

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Unfortunately, people who use "fascism" as part of their argument are also usually wrong. And bad.

It's basically the trendy way to accuse someone of being a Nazi without having them throwing Godwin's Law in your face - it's almost always emotional rhetoric from immature armchair pundits.

It's not even a new thing, Red Dwarf was making fun of that sort of mentality back in the 1980s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfFSlQ9zv9w

But "think of the children" is literally the 14 Words

Lokarin posted...

But "think of the children" is literally the 14 Words

Doesn't really mean much when assholes on every part of the political spectrum have used it as an argument (for longer than any of us here have been alive). It's not really aligned to a specific ideology, it's just one of the easiest rhetorical appeal-to-emotion arguments you can make. Because whenever someone disagrees with you you can just accuse them of hating kids.

It's Social Manipulation 101.

It's like how anti-abortion groups call themselves "Pro-Life" (because it allows them to paint themselves as morally superior while their enemies are "anti-life" or "pro-death" or "in favor of murdering babies"). While groups in favor of abortion call themselves "Pro-Choice" (because it allows them to paint themselves as morally superior while their enemies are "anti-choice" or "pro-oppression" or "in favor of denying women basic human rights"). It's all deliberately worded to make you look like the asshole for disagreeing with them.

People on both the Left and the Right have used the "won't someone please think of the children?!" argument. And it's usually the argument you use when you don't have any other good arguments.

ok, that's fair... i do kinda agree both sides are fascist :D

stop censoring shit for stupid kids and their shitty parents.

Did we ever see ourselves when we were children. Get the kids off the Internet as a general whole, but let them have certain public resources online such as a library or listening to books on Audible, or instructional videos on various arts or crafts. Likewise, take the Internet and phone privileges away from numerous old people with the same limitations as children.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/5/AAQwHjAADNwD.jpg

How about parents actually parent instead of making the government do it for them?

Entity13 posted...

Get the kids off the Internet as a general whole, but let them have certain public resources online such as a library or listening to books on Audible, or instructional videos on various arts or crafts. Likewise, take the Internet and phone privileges away from numerous old people with the same limitations as children.

The only "realistic" way that's going to work is to implement some sort of dystopian nationwide registration/monitoring system. At which point we'd probably still have censorship and would essentially have turned into the garbage that China has.

sveksii posted...

The only "realistic" way that's going to work is to implement some sort of dystopian nationwide registration/monitoring system. At which point we'd probably still have censorship and would essentially have turned into the garbage that China has.

Or they could make kid specific devices that can't connect to any unapproved websites, I think they already have tablets like that for younger kids (my nieces have kid tablets, not sure if they connect to the internet though)

Or, you know, parents can just pay attention to what their kids do and we won't have to worry about the government getting involved

Muscles posted...

Or they could make kid specific devices that can't connect to any unapproved websites, I think they already have tablets like that for younger kids (my nieces have kid tablets, not sure if they connect to the internet though)

Or, you know, parents can just pay attention to what their kids do and we won't have to worry about the government getting involved

A device approach is a good step in the right direction, I think. Having parents or legal guardians actually perform their role rather than put whomever in front of a screen and forget about them for hours on end would be nice, but that has been the struggle since the end of the 70s; and it's gotten worse since then.

Muscles posted...

How about parents actually parent instead of making the government do it for them?

Because corporations are constantly pushing the envelope as far as manipulative advertising goes, with children being a particular target for that because of how malleable they are. Keeping up with that to such an extent as to prevent mental health issues and other problems requires significantly more than just paying attention to your kids. It requires genuine effort to stay on top of emergent research (the same research corporations are using to advance their agendas) and a considerable amount of scientific literacy across multiple fields, all of which is far beyond what can be expected of the average person.

Yes, a lot of those problems can be mitigated by taking a more active role in your children's life instead of letting whatever technological babysitter is most relevant to the era we're talking about have unfettered access to their minds, but the problem runs a lot deeper than that. It's not going to be solved without some kind of organized effort to push back against and regulate it, because laypeople simply cannot be sufficiently equipped to keep up with the arms race. An organized regulatory effort is government.

Now, that's not to say that efforts from the government to regulate contemporary media tend to work. Most governments (especially ones as old as the US') are largely out of touch with current media trends and tend to operate more in terms of emotional rhetoric that appeals to voters instead of listening to subject matter experts to guide effective intervention strategies. That's a problem. But foisting the whole solution onto individual parents also isn't going to work no matter how many libertarian textbooks you spooge all over before making the suggestion.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

My usual stance is that any argument or proposition that involves "think of the children" as part of its justification is probably objectively wrong. Because it almost always is.

Conversely, however, letting that cynicism get in the way of recognizing and solving problems that genuinely are harming children is no less wrong. Yes, "think of the children" is almost invariably a shallow emotional appeal from people who have nothing more meaningful to say, but also the children should be thought of in instances where there is objective harm happening and something can be done to prevent that.

Entity13 posted...

A device approach is a good step in the right direction, I think. Having parents or legal guardians actually perform their role rather than put whomever in front of a screen and forget about them for hours on end would be nice, but that has been the struggle since the end of the 70s; and it's gotten worse since then.

The problem is, if you're the parent who goes out of their way to limit your kids from using the technology, Internet, and social media, you've essentially guaranteed your child is going to be a janitor at McDonalds when they grow up.

Like it or not, being able to use and navigate technology has become the "literacy" of the modern age. A kid who grows up not having access will grow up developmentally limited compared to their peers. They'll also be socially impaired, because they'll lack the capacity to relate to their fellows.

It's easy to say that parents should parent and kids should go out and play and not spend all day on their phones/tablets. But it's not really that easy to do in a way that doesn't do more harm than good.

Ultimately the real problem is finding a way to better integrate and implement the technology, skills, and experiences in a formative way rather than just shrugging and hoping everything works out for the best.



adjl posted...

Conversely, however, letting that cynicism get in the way of recognizing and solving problems that genuinely are harming children is no less wrong.

Yes, but that's why I said "probably" and "almost".

What about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at their social media? What about doing that, looking into things like that and we can stop that that way?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(of course, if we DID that all the pedos would just make fake kid accounts to hang out there anyway, so it would take a lot of policing)

On the other hand, it would also make it incredibly easy to catch pedos with

The government shouldn't be the ones censoring content from minors. Parents need to take the lead role of protecting their children.