262

Lawmakers across the country (United States) are trying to protect kids by age-gating parts of the internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Strangle@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

There should be something to this. A lot of parents keep their children off of the internet, but having young children accessing ‘most’ of the internet is a bad fucking idea

Parents, monitor and limit your kids online. I know it’s hard as fuck, I know other kids will think it’s weird that your kid doesn’t know the new tiktok thing. Do it anyway

[-] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I genuinely think that children's ease of access to pornographic content is a serious and unprecedented threat to their well-being. This is why I think it was a mistake to normalise kids having unlimited access to internet-enabled mobile devices, and why I think having the family computer in a public-ish place is smart. It doesn't even necessarily have to result in your kid being socially impacted, if you just limit their time on it but still allow them some autonomy. I had friends growing up where their router shut down automatically overnight so they couldn't use their phones when they should be sleeping, but they were still just as hip and cool as anyone else.

[-] Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, why? What is the unprecedented threat?

And I think you have a misunderstanding of how isolated teenagers were from sexual content before the internet, magazines weren't exactly hard to get. Even before then, we've literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls.

[-] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

What is the unprecedented threat?

The ease of access of it now, and the extreme shock value of a lot of what even shows up on homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.

we’ve literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls. Porn ≠ erotic art or even sexually explicit material. Children should not have their first exposure to genitalia through media made with the express purpose of sexual gratification.

Part of allowing people to develop, evolve, and mature their sexuality on their own should involve preventing formative experiences from being based on fantasy.

[-] Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.

It's really not. You just weren't exposed to it and think it's new. The only change is the quantity, not the depravity. Marquis de Sade, the origin of the word sadist produced a significant amount of incredibly depraved erotic works back in the 1700's, and he was not unique.

To your second point, should their first exposure be to porn? Of course not, but developing, evolving and maturing is done by exploring, not by sitting in a cave and generating knowledge from scratch, even if you have an equally amateur friend. That's how people get hurt because they have no idea what they're doing. If they want to see what's out there, let them. Trying to ban everyone from sexual content until 18 is a uniquely modern take.

Not to mention, we're far too uncomfortable with the topic to have their first exposure be anything but porn, since sex ed is all drawings and awkward anatomy. And childbirth videos. Since I was a kid myself, all I've seen is moral panic that wants nothing more than to simply shut the blinds and pretend that there's nothing there.

[-] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Trying to ban everyone from sexual content until 18 is a uniquely modern take.

You keep equating all forms of media that might depict sex, nakedness, or even erotica as porn.

[-] Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's been a while, but I'm confused. I never said anything like that, but that is essentially the government's point of view. Erotica requires one to be 18 to see, whether written, drawn, or photographed. Depictions of sex and nudity either ban everyone under 17 ( or 17 and under for NC-17 ratings), or expect parents to restrict those under 17 in the case of television as it can't be moderated (for now).

At any rate, I just wanted to respond and clarify despite the better part of a month passing.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Probably because they used mobile internet. At least that what I did.

hip and cool as anyone else.

See. Seeing pornography doesn't make children uncool.

unprecedented threat to their well-being

Actual threat to their well-being is content about quantuum physics and astronomy. Both topics can cause existential crisis.

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
262 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59670 readers
2579 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS