Say you were a guardian or parent and get to decide when a child can get a phone or use a computer and get internet with it. If you wish you can also install software and change router settings to what you see fit.
Some parents decide to forbid the internet completely, others are more relaxed. Some go the helicopter route, and some do not care whatsoever what their kid does online.
What is your policy on letting a child use the internet?
Wow, such a substantive argument. /s
this is just an extremely fascist take
So you say, and yet not any hint of how.
so like half the people here (who are apart of the lgbtq community) would be dead without a way to communicate to others outside of “gay”-hating families
‘Killing people is bad and we should generally have rules against it.’
‘But what if I need to defend myself?’
Do you think that limited circumstance warrant throwing away the rule? Or maybe, just maybe, we stick to the general as a general rule but excuse violations of the rule where it seems reasonable? The vast majority of kids are not endangered by queerness, and those that are should be helped, but the answer to a few kids needing help is not to open the floodgates on everyone else. Computers are great tools but the modern internet is no place for an unaccompanied child. It’s probably not even good for adults, but adults can at least pretend to give informed consent in a way kids cannot.
“children communicating to others that are not their parents is bad and we should generally have rules against it”
“dude WHAT”
children communicating to others,
that are not their parents** ESPECIALLY ANONYMOUS\PSEUDONYMOUS STRANGERS, WITHOUT THEIR PARENT’S GUIDANCE** is bad and we should generally have rules against it.FTFY
There are three groups who seek out kids online: companies who want to do bad things to them, adults who want to do bad things to them, (or are just weird, so probably not good role models at least, even if they might not be technically predatory) and other kids. Given the first two are big and malign, and the third can be accessed by going to school, an extracurricular activity, or through means that connect through but are distinct from access to the open internet, it’s a bad idea to let kids have open access to the awfulness of the modern web.
A small number of kids, in a small number of cases, might benefit from access to the internet in the same way a small number of kids, in a small set of circumstances, may benefit from antibiotics, but we don’t put bottles of penicillin into kids’ pockets and blithely trust them to use them wisely.
Quite simply, if you believe kids are capable of making wise decisions regarding their online actions and interactions without parental guidance, you are granting them the autonomy and authority to offer informed consent. Is that really something you are comfortable with?
hey, we got a word for that, its called MURDER ban MURDER not kiilling
and do you have ANY IDEA how big the internet is?
youtube and those slopsites make up less than 0.0001% of it
“the internet” is like saying “the universe”
Killing and murder are the same thing. Killing in defence is called justifiable homicide. Don’t play language games.