← Back to context

Comment by yupyupyups

19 hours ago

>These users include young people exploring their gender or sexual identity

And who would they need to hide from?

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.

  • >parents

    You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids.

    Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet.

    The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic.

    If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into question their desire to protect children online in the first place.

    • Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.

      8 replies →

    • Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should not be forced to live in the shadows or face abuse due to a "protect the kids" narrative.

      1 reply →

    • I do, of course. It's just worth considering that not every parent is how you or I might like or imagine them to be.

      For some children their parents finding out they're gay would cause a great deal of real world physical or phycological harm. It's a really tricky thing to navigate, but aside from saying 'no children should be allowed access to the internet unsupervised' it gets really difficult.

From people who would harm them?

Oh you're that anti-games, anti-porn guy, best to ignore anything you say.

  • I'm not anti-games.

    >From people who would harm them?

    Like who? I really hope you don't mean the kids' parents.

    • this is coming across as intentionally obtuse questioning. Many people, including governments think that adopting specific sexual preferences and identities is wrong and worthy of criminal charges and harassment at a minimum.