Comment by ajsnigrutin
4 months ago
I think regulation could be done better...
Let's assign one or ideally two adults to each underage child, who are aware of the childs real age and can intervene and prevent the child from installing discord (and any other social media) in the first place or confiscate the equipment if the child breaks the rules. They could also regulate many other thing in the childs life, not just social network use.
> confiscate the equipment if the child breaks the rules.
Even you acknowledge this plan is flawed and that the child can break the rules. And it's not that difficult. After all, confiscating the equipment assumes that they know about the equipment and that they can legally seize the equipment. Third parties are involved, and doing what you suggests would land these adults in prison.
I know you thought you were being smart with your suggestion that maybe parents should be parents, but really you just highlighted your ignorance.
The goal of these laws are to prevent children from accessing content. If some adults get caught in the crossfire, they don't care.
Now, I'm not defending these laws or saying anything about them. What I am saying is that your "suggestion" is flawed from the point of view of those proposing these laws.
These are not 20 something college students with jobs and rented apartments, doing stuff without their parents knowing.
These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing.
The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone, so the governments know who the "loud ones" (against whatever political cause) are. Using small kids as a reason to do so is a typical modus operandi to achieve that.
Yes, those "one or two adults" I meantioned should be the parents, and yes, parents can legally confiscate their kids phones if they're doing something stupid online. They can also check what the kid is doing online.
If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents, that kid will also be able to avoid such checks by vpn-ing (or using a proxy) to some non-UK country, where those checks won't be mandatory. This again is solved by the parents actually parenting, again... it's kids younger than 13, at that age, parents can and should have total control of their child.
It has to be acknowledged that some things, like social media and pornography, are harmful to children. "Maintain the status quo" isn't an attractive response to that. ID laws are not a perfect solution, maybe not even a good one.
You undermine your whole point by pretending VPNs are going to make the whole thing moot. Why do you care when you won't be affected because you can just use a VPN? Why does pornhub make such a fuss when their users can just use a VPN? Because in reality, introducing that much friction will stop a lot of people.
8 replies →
>These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing.
Yes they do. If all that is preventing them from having a job is depending upon their parents to stop that behavior, there are enough parents who aren't going to intervene that I will reasonably be able to staff my coal mine. Sure, the parents should do a better job, but history shows us that many don't (be it choice or be it other factors). So are we willing for the kids of those parents to effectively be treated as adults by everyone else or are we going to keep laws that protect kids even when parents aren't doing so?
> The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone
The UK government is nowhere near competent enough to be that stealthy.
Also, it already has this ability already. Identifying a person on social media is pretty simple, All it takes is a request to the media company, and to the ISP/phone provider.
> If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents,
Then you have bigger fucking problems. If a 12yo can do that, in your home and not let on, then you've raised a fucking super spy.
> parents can and should have total control of their child.
Like how? constantly check their phones? that's just invasion of privacy, your kid's never going to trust you. Does the average parent know how to do that, will they enforce non-disappearing messages?
Allowing kids to be social, safe and not utter little shits online is fucking hard. I'm really not sure how we can make sure kids aren't being manipulated by fucking tiktok rage bait. (I mean adults are too, but thats a different problem)
You keep saying it's flawed but I don't see how or why.
What exactly is wrong with the idea that parents should look after their kids?
In the eyes of people who propose laws like this, what's wrong is that that wouldn't let them forcibly impose their values on everyone else.