92
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
92 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
81529 readers
885 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hear me out. Maybe, if you are a parent, its your duty to keep an eye on your child, and exert some control over the spaces and people they interact with?
Conservatives have been using the "think of the children line" to justify Draconian overeach for years. All while simultaneously doing everything in their power to take away programs that help children.
Let's not act like the dems don't do some of the same shit.
And no I'm not both sidesing this shit...just saying that the dems/left uses this reasoning a lot as well.
Minnesota recently used their tax on billionaires to expand education and provide free lunch to children so while the party isn't perfect they are not at all comparable.
What makes them so similar is first pass the post it guarantees a two party system and the practice of gerrymandering creating safe seats. The worst Democrats are the ones with the safest seats. If you want positive change start there.
We're talking about trying to pass legislation in the name of "think of the children" logic. KOSA is a fairly recent one that is from the dems.
Average age of Lemmy is too low to remember the democrats always managed to support the war on drugs. Save the children indeed. Think of the children is just the go-to bipartisan reasoning for bad legislation
political parties aren’t real. Their only purpose is market segmentation.
It doesn’t matter which teams win in sports, billionaires own all the leagues.
Bugger off ml bot.
Absofucking- lutely!
My 12 year old has zero unsupervised access to the internet. Zero. "But they'll suffer sociallly!"
Will they? My son has tons of friends and they play sports and Nerf guns. And, he can read. A whole chapter book, on his own, without prompting.
Suffer socially, ask the "incels" who have recovered if the internet access they had as teens "helped them socially".
My nephew plays lots of on online games. My sister checks in with me to make sure that he is both playing games that are appropriate for him, and with people who are appropriate to play with. We've setup a discord specifically for him and his friends, and the account he uses is actually my sister's account, on her own device, so she has direct control over what communities he's on in discord, who he talks to, and what content he is exposed to.
He is not allowed to play public lobby games with out her supervision, or a trusted "chaperone" (one of many IRL friend and family members) being in the lobby with him. This is as much about protecting him from harmful content, as it is about teaching him proper gaming etiquette. He was showing some toxic behaviors (greifing mainly) and I shut that down pretty quick.
My kids had full internet use with only porn and advertising blocking, except for "homework time", as well as no restrictions on video games (except for fucking Roblox). They recently graduated high-school at the top of their class and continue doing great in university.
They grew up to be nice, well-rounded young men who make friends easily, aren't assholes, aren't glued to their cell phones (which they had since they were little), don't mindlessly watch TV, can easily switch tasks and "buckle down" when they have to, and have a great work ethic. They grew up with the attitude that internet/cell phones are tools, not rewards or distractions. Once they hit high-school I found I no longer needed to monitor them (and it was starting to feel creepy and invasive). When they had to study they studied, on their own without prompting or timers.
I had no worries because I know how to read papers, and there was (and still is) ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that doing so would be harming, but in fact the reverse is true.
Kids grow up to be like their parents. Don't want them to be assholes? Then don't be an asshole. Want them to grow up with a reading habit? Then read for yourself. It's that easy.
It's interesting to see that their friends who had strict internet/gaming rules ended up turning into complete shitheads they no longer associate with.
The conservative belief is that children are basically property and as such can be used for hard labor and kept from appropriate healthcare... But then when it comes to porn, Big Government has to do everything for them.
Nobody ever said it was a consistent ideology.
Hear me out: parents are irresponsible, and also can't watch their kids 24/7
I hear you. I guess shitty parents is a good enough reason to let a company monetize your PII for a bit before they (or one of their customers) gets hacked and dumps to the dark web.
It's not, but that doesn't make your argument any more sensible.
Ah, so maybe shitty parents isn't a good enough reason to let a company monetize and eventually lose your PII to the dark web?
That is what I said, yes.
Okay. Cool that's what I said too. Just... the way you said it sounded like you were advocating for using bad parenting as a pretext for massive breaches of privacy and identity security.
The way you said it sounded like you were advocating for parents to watch their kids every second of every day, and if they don't then whatever happens is their fault.
If your child steals a car, are you allowed to say "I can't watch my kids all time time" and get off consequence free?
Of course not. Do I think it is realistic for parents to keep an eye on their kid 100% of the time, of course not... But, I do expect that parents raise their kids in a progressively less restrictive manner and provide access to more autonomy as the child mautures? Absolutely, and I don't think it is unreasonable to extend that progressive loosening of the parental leash in the real world to children on the internet. You shouldn't have to watch your kids all the time on the internet, if they are old enough and mature enough to be on there unsupervised. If they aren't ready for unsupervised access to the internet, then you shouldn't allow it.
I don't understand how you reconcile these 2 statements. They can't watch their kids 100% but also if the kid does something illegal, it's their responsibility? You can raise your kids to do whatever you want but they often do not listen.
Good luck telling your kids they can't get on the internet. Remember you can't watch them all day.
Point is, if the parents are irresponsible, then who does it hurt? The parents? No. It hurts the children, and it hurts the rest of society.
Your same argument can be used to abolish any sort of legal protections for children like gambling, driving, smoking, drinking, tattoos, etc. Everything should be the parents' responsibility, right?
The reconsoliation is that as a parent, you are responsible/accountable for the actions of your child at all times, whether you are watching them or not. It's part of being a parent. Raising your children not to be little sociopaths who can eventually be trusted as adults, is a major part of parenting.
Let me ask you: Should parents be responsible for damage done by their child?
I'm not really expecting yes/no to that answer, so feel free to elaborate on it
Criminally liable? That's insane.
Parents have limited control of that. Children are not remote controlled robots, they're their own people, and some of them are shit, no matter what you do.
If you can demonstrate a pattern of bad parenting, sure.
So, if a teen takes their mom's keys, and drives her car into your parked car, should you be on the hook for the damages to your vehicle? Should you be on the hook for the damages to her vehicle? Especially if it's a first time offense?
My answer to your question is on your comment.
Gotcha. So if it is the first time, or maybe the second time, fuck you, pay for the damage someone else did to your car and their own car. Maybe on the 4th or 5th time, we can start getting the teen's parents to pay for it?
Welcome to life bro. Shit happens.
Yep. Un-parented teen burns down your house, shit happens.
Another kid brings their dad's gun to school and shoot your kid, shit happens.
Kid has to steal food in order to survive. Shit happens.
Clearly, the parents are completely beyond reproach.
Seriously, do you even think of the wider implications of a position that you are arguing, or do you just pick the dumbest fucking stance and stick with it all the way? Parents have been raising their kids for literally as long as there have been people on this earth. It's practically globally agreed upon that the parents are responsible for raising and controlling their child, until the child has developed enough to make their own decisons, understand the risks, and accept the consequences for their actions.
And... To go further, your "world view" about "bad shit happens" can be extended to cover "My child saw porn, shit happens", which would break down your argument that it is necessary for discord to collect and store PII from millions of people.
Wow, that really escalated quickly from car damage. These are all crimes you can charge kids with just like adults. You cannot and should not charge their parents, who had abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to do with it. This is insane. Seriously, do you even think of the wider implications of a position that you are arguing, or do you just pick the dumbest fucking stance and stick with it all the way?
And, to go further, we definitely shouldn't have any laws about drinking, smoking, driving, getting tattoos, etc. We just leave it up to the parents to make those decisions too, right? We have to trust them all to make the right decisions and don't bother making any rules or laws, right? 🤡
https://apnews.com/article/james-crumbley-jennifer-crumbley-oxford-school-shooting-e5888f615c76c3b26153c34dc36d5436
These two had "literally nothing" to do with it, and they were charged for it. It's called Neglect.
https://abcnews.com/US/parents-charged-manslaughter-boy-struck-car-gastonia-north-carolina/story?id=122500748
And yes, if your kid commits crimes, then you can be fined and sued for it. You are responsible for the conduct of your child while your child is incapable of being responsible for themselves.
Let's not forget, by your framework of parental responsibility, if your unsupervised child sees porn on discord because they wandered into a community of people talking about porn... Tough shit, that's life.
Drinking and driving can and do harm others. I understand age gating those activities to prevent unresponsible children from hurting other people and themselves. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". The age limits on smoking and also drinking, are there to prevent tobacco and alcohol vendors from hooking children on addictive substances. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life". Age requirements to get tattoos are there to prevent children from getting life-long body altering ink from a vendor who had a financial interest in doing the work. Some states do allow teens to get tattoos, with parental consent BTW. Remember, by your framework of parental responsibility, "tough shit, that's life".
This is exactly what I meant when I said you should think about the wider implications of your argument before you make it and nail your identity to it.
Tell you what. Let's do one more thing here to really test your conviction to this argument that discord should be photo-ID-ing it's users. The Fediverse is an equally open (if not more so) forum where people can communicate in ways that convey NSFW content. I will stick to my guns, and accept the consequences of any child I'm responsible for seeing titties or a live leak murder if I let them on the internet unsupervised. You, on the other hand, need to show us all a photo ID (make it your profile pic, or put it in your bio, to prove you're not a child) before you can post further on any platform? Deal? Or are you going to back out of what you are advocating to force on everyone?