Comment on The Age-Checked Internet Has Arrived
hansolo@lemmy.today 3 days agoSMH
Fine, changed the search term to “sex.” Fewer letters in fact. I was trying to just provide a subtle example, I didn’t expect petiole to need to be hit over the head with it.
So you love the idea of young children seeing porn? Because studies and surveys routinely find that kids as young as 7 are seeing porn online, and many under age 12. Really? You think that’s perfectly fine for a 12, 10, or 7 year old with granma’s iPad doing an image search and getting even accidental porn?
And hey, I spent my teen years scouring the earth for playboys and staying up until 3 am to catch boobs in R rated movies. I get it. I’m not saying that any system or method will prevent anyome from seeing all adult content their whole life short of being Amish. But as a tender 13 year old, did I need to see all the porn in the universe? Probably not. Adding friction (pun not intended) to general access, without violating privacy, is all I’m saying might be a good idea.
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Nah 7 year olds should not be using any internet without parental controls either way so the protection is absolutely moot here. Also your “sex” example returns absolutely zero sexual content on google, Bing or duckduckgo images while boop does.
Also tbh I’m not particularly convinced that seeing porn is all that damaging. Doing quick research it seems that there are no proven damages or development impacts and real actual danger of porn is teaching teens and young adults distorted views of sex and gender roles. Seems like kids in your example aren’t even capable of such frameworks to begin with.
So despite how nasty it sounds there’s no convincing evidence that its even a real danger. In fact, it seems like exposure to violent images like gore and freak accidents thats having real damage.
If you have some oposing evidence I’d gladly take a look but I’m really unconvinced here that googling boop could be in any way detrimental.
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 days ago
OK… So, the initial question was “how could anyone support this?” right?
I’m simply explaining how some people see the argument. I never said I see it like this.
So I’m by no means defending any of this other than it being technically possible, and at that, this falls far short of anything resembling acceptable in my book.
Parents who vote and would support this would do so based on limited technical knowledge and a total ideological investment in “preventing” any exposure. Which, we agree, is idiotic.
Y’all really need to chill out with your pitchforks.