> that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom.
People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them.
>You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children
That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
> Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them.
As Millennial, internet we grew up in is vastly different from internet the kids are growing up in. Our access was different and content pushing was much different.
1. actually keep kids safe from bad stuff? kids in the UK already bypassed it, and Instagram and TikTok are already bad for kids and not getting blocked so who's it really protecting?
2. or will it mainly be used by the government to easily doxx and crack down on those who speak against it while kids still can access porn?
> That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth to that point: we already know this, but we’re the exception to the norm.
Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content. That’s not remotely true, but more people believe that narrative than the technically correct argument that this is all just a mass surveillance ploy by the government to weed out and persecute “undesirables” by wielding sex as a weapon.
So now picture how we sound making the technically correct argument to the masses who believe the narrative: we sound batshit insane, and they won’t listen to us.
Instead if we take the side of faulting absentee parents for failing to police their kids online, then that usually results in their defensive rebuttal of “we both work full-time, and I don’t have the time or skill to do this!”
That’s what we want to hear. That argument can be reasoned with, because they’re correct in their justification, even if the act they’re justifying is wrong. Once they admit that, we can take their side in more constructive ways, like:
* Yeah, tech companies do make it too easy for kids to go online and wade into adult spaces. Big Tech and Social Media companies should do more to curate a child-only space that’s entirely curated rather than throwing them onto the open internet by default
* Yes, the fact everything requires kids to be online in front of a screen is bad, and we should be mandating kids have healthier relationships with technology by limiting their access or promoting better understanding of its functions
* Yeah, a society where both parents have to work full-time to survive does hinder child development and prohibits parents from nurturing their growth in desired ways. We should build a society where one parent can stay home full-time and be the caregiver and mentor children need to thrive
* Yeah, these devices are deliberately complicated to prevent easy moderation by parents of their children, and it’s by design. We should create regulations that make it easier for parents to secure their children’s devices, not make it easier for kids to get online
See? Once we pivot the argument back to, “You’re right in your feelings but wrong in your attack vector, let’s work together on this”, we’ll get more support and allies in building a better solution for everyone.
>Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content.
For the majority of people "the internet" just means Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Tiktok, GMail, Amazon and Youtube. There's not much prono stuff there harming kids in order to have the government implement more radical measures than the laws we already have (COPPA in the US, other shit in the EU).
If they'd really want to help kids they would just ban Tiktok and Instagram and all these instant dopamine brainrot apps, not sites where kids might see some breasts.
People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them.
>You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children
That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.