I feel like I’m standing between two really stupid positions here.
On the one hand, just let parents teach their kids is basically a state’s rights argument. A lot of parents won’t teach their kids, so… do we care? Does this matter? We should probably mount a stronger effort then.
On the other hand, we don’t need the government to get involved to stop 9 year olds from seeing titties—we just don’t! Websites the world over have implemented 2-factor-authentication more or less by themselves (and probably because they want to spy on you). And, no one says the word r----- anymore because if you ever do, a bunch of anti-bullying PSAs will be really annoying about it in your replies.
Not every social problem needs to be solved by swinging around Thor’s hammer. We do have other means.
No, it’s a privacy and individual rights argument. I don’t want local governments enforcing it any more than I want national arguments enforcing it.
Kids seeing stuff they shouldn’t isn’t itself a problem, but it can lead to problems. For example, kids learning to make bombs itself isn’t an issue, kids making bombs to hurt others is the issue. Hold parents legally accountable for the latter, not the former.
The furthest I’d be willing to go on this is requiring a payment method (which itself requires sufficient age) to be entered before accessing anything “adult oriented,” and even then I’m not completely sold. But this way the burden of verifying age is restricted to things consumers already need to trust, and parents would need to give or allow their kid access to a payment method.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying I’m in favor of this law.
By state’s rights, I’m referring to the way republicans pretend they want the freedom of choice where they are actually just looking for excuses to keep doing what they’re doing. In this way, letting parents choose is functionally identical: parents won’t choose, so it is equivalent to doing nothing.
There has to be a cultural shift for anything to change.
Kids seeing stuff they shouldn’t isn’t itself a problem,
If I’m being perfectly honest, I do not give a shit if 9-year-olds can see titties. Like, my other argument against this government overreach is that I don’t know what problem it’s supposedly solving that can’t just be solved with better sex-ed.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
I feel like I’m standing between two really stupid positions here.
On the one hand, just let parents teach their kids is basically a state’s rights argument. A lot of parents won’t teach their kids, so… do we care? Does this matter? We should probably mount a stronger effort then.
On the other hand, we don’t need the government to get involved to stop 9 year olds from seeing titties—we just don’t! Websites the world over have implemented 2-factor-authentication more or less by themselves (
and probably because they want to spy on you). And, no one says the word r----- anymore because if you ever do, a bunch of anti-bullying PSAs will be really annoying about it in your replies.Not every social problem needs to be solved by swinging around Thor’s hammer. We do have other means.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
No, it’s a privacy and individual rights argument. I don’t want local governments enforcing it any more than I want national arguments enforcing it.
Kids seeing stuff they shouldn’t isn’t itself a problem, but it can lead to problems. For example, kids learning to make bombs itself isn’t an issue, kids making bombs to hurt others is the issue. Hold parents legally accountable for the latter, not the former.
The furthest I’d be willing to go on this is requiring a payment method (which itself requires sufficient age) to be entered before accessing anything “adult oriented,” and even then I’m not completely sold. But this way the burden of verifying age is restricted to things consumers already need to trust, and parents would need to give or allow their kid access to a payment method.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying I’m in favor of this law.
By state’s rights, I’m referring to the way republicans pretend they want the freedom of choice where they are actually just looking for excuses to keep doing what they’re doing. In this way, letting parents choose is functionally identical: parents won’t choose, so it is equivalent to doing nothing.
There has to be a cultural shift for anything to change.
If I’m being perfectly honest, I do not give a shit if 9-year-olds can see titties. Like, my other argument against this government overreach is that I don’t know what problem it’s supposedly solving that can’t just be solved with better sex-ed.