Asklemmy

Parents should have the tools to be able to give their children specific information. And part of that toolbox is keeping them off the internet. Or only supervise internet use for an hour or two a day. Giving any child complete and total access to a tool is kind of dangerous. You have to educate them about the dangers of the tool and how to properly respect it. So if your child is 3 years old they may not be ready for the raw internet.

If an organization such as the government wants to spend money to create a child friendly network space, KinterNet, Great more power to them. Then concerned parents could VPN to the Kinternet on devices for their children. It would be opt-in.

De facto if you give your child a device with unfettered internet access, you're saying they're ready and responsible enough to handle the kind of information there. That you've trained them in the proper use of the tools.

Most kids used to be farm kids, they knew about sex, because on the farm sex happens. Happens a lot. They see the entire life cycle of a various animals. But now we have many children who don't have exposure to the whole life cycle, and if you cut the internet off for them then they're going to grow up very stunted as well. Everything's a balance, and that's up to the parents.

But I think all of these words are wasted. The reason surveillance bills are pushed on us "for the children" is because it's a convenient excuse, it sets precedent, it's about control, it's not about the children. It's an excuse only... And if everyone really is trying to protect the children, where does it end? Can't talk about Santa Claus online? We must reaffirm the tooth fairy industrial complex?